Scientific Consensus Through the Lens of the Ideology Matrix

In this article, scientific consensus is understood not as science as a method of seeking truth, but as a socio-cultural system of norms, rules, and collective decisions that define what is considered “scientific” at a particular historical moment. Such a system facilitates the development and filtering of ideas but simultaneously possesses all the features of an ideological structure, which can hinder renewal and critical reflection.

Scientific consensus is often perceived as an objective standard of truth, based on facts and verified data. However, when examined through the lens of the ideology matrix—a set of basic features of closed systems of thought—traits characteristic of ideological constructs emerge. This article analyzes scientific consensus using the ideology matrix to show how it can function not only as a body of knowledge but also as a system of beliefs.

1. Foundational Basis

Matrix definition: The hidden or explicitly stated foundation from which everything else follows.

Scientific consensus rests on the basis of materialism (“everything is matter”) and empiricism: reality is knowable only through observation, experimentation, and physical laws.
This foundation often implicitly includes the assumption that the universe is, in principle, knowable, and that any phenomenon is potentially explainable within the framework of natural science models. Anything that cannot be measured or reproduced is declared “temporarily unexplained,” but not “fundamentally unknowable.”

For example, metaphysical or spiritual aspects of reality are often excluded as “unscientific” because the initial model assumes that nothing exists—or is worth attention—except the observable and measurable.
Although this basis seems neutral, it sets strict boundaries, determining not only the permissible methods of knowledge but also the very structure of future answers: everything will be reduced to what is measurable and explicable.

2. Permitted Framework

Matrix definition: Clearly drawn boundaries of what is “right” and “wrong.”

In scientific consensus, the framework of the permissible is shaped by methodology: hypotheses must be testable, results reproducible, and conclusions based on data. These criteria are the backbone of science, protecting its findings from fakes and mystifications.

However, the framework does not exist in a vacuum. It relies on an implicit materialist basis, assuming that reality boils down to matter and all phenomena are explainable within physical-mathematical models. Hypotheses that go beyond these limits—for example, research into the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics (as in the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation) or psychosomatic effects—are often dismissed as “unscientific” without objective investigation. Thus, the framework serves not only methodology but also a certain ontology, protecting the materialist worldview.

Over time, the framework can transform from a filter of meaning into a ritual of form, safeguarding the established order. Ideas that do not fit the mainstream—such as alternative theories of gravity or revisions of fundamental laws—are automatically tabooed as “pseudoscience,” often without proper analysis.
A notable example is the reproducibility crisis in psychology and biomedicine, where up to 50% of studies were not confirmed upon replication, yet the system ignored the problem for years, clinging to “acceptable” results.

Thus, the permissible framework, initially defending science, becomes a mechanism of ideologization, suppressing not only fakes but also well-founded ideas that threaten the established consensus.

3. Internal Authority

Matrix definition: The central source of truth (text, collective, leader, expertise).

In scientific consensus, authority is vested in the community of experts—scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals and recognized institutions (universities, academies of science). This collective authority replaces an individual leader, but its influence is no less significant. For example, publication in Nature or Science is regarded as a sign of quality, even if the work itself may later be refuted.

4. Sacred/Immovable Corpus of Knowledge

Matrix definition: The body of positions that cannot be disputed.

In scientific consensus, the immovable corpus includes foundational theories—evolution, relativity, climate change models, and others. These positions are considered proven and are rarely questioned within mainstream science.

Like any established system—church, corporation, state—science forms its own “sacred corpus,” and its revision occurs extremely rarely, usually under strong external or internal pressure.
Examples of “paradigm shifts” are well described by Thomas Kuhn: history records revolutionary transitions such as the advent of quantum mechanics, the discovery of DNA, the collapse of the geocentric model, and so on.
However, in practice, challenging established positions often leads to the marginalization of the scientist, even if the criticism is methodologically sound. Innovators typically face resistance from the community, and acceptance and integration of their ideas into a new paradigm happen only years or decades later.

Such a mechanism is not unique to science but is a property of any established system: churches and corporations also change doctrines only when pressure for change becomes irresistible.
The viability of a system is shown by its ability to integrate radical revisions, not by the absence of errors or perfect flexibility.

Therefore, despite rare revolutionary shifts, the “sacred corpus” is always protected by an immunity system—only severe shocks open the way for deep changes.

5. Promise of the Future / Enlightenment

Matrix definition: The idea of “liberation” or “progress” through the system.

Scientific consensus not only creates the expectation of practical progress—technological innovation, medical breakthroughs, solutions to global problems (such as climate change)—but also transmits a special “promise of total knowledge.” According to an implicit dogma, science will someday provide answers to all questions and fully explain the universe within the existing model.

This promise is deeply rooted in culture and rarely questioned: even the possibility of recognizing something fundamentally “unknowable” is practically taboo. It is believed that if something is not explained now, it is only a matter of time and accumulation of facts, not a boundary of human understanding.

Here, we are not dealing with a scientific statement, but with an ideological myth.
The promise of total knowledge can neither be proven nor disproven in principle—just like the religious promise of the “Kingdom of Heaven” or ultimate salvation. Both science and religion create an appealing prospect of “future revelation,” mobilizing loyalty and faith in the system.

Such an approach ignores the duality of the world: if there is the knowable, then inevitably there is also the unknowable; if there is discovery, there is also mystery that cannot be exhausted by formal description. Denial of this duality is another feature of the ideologization of the scientific worldview.

In addition, such a promise may create hidden pressure on scientists, forcing their results to conform to the optimistic picture of “universal understanding and progress,” even when they encounter fundamental limits of knowledge.

6. Ritualized Practices

Matrix definition: Regular actions confirming loyalty to the system.

In science, rituals include writing articles, attending conferences, peer reviewing, obtaining grants, and citing “proper” sources. These practices strengthen belonging to the scientific community and uphold its structure. For example, citing works from “authoritative” journals often becomes mandatory, even if their quality is debatable.

Such practices not only sustain the structure but can stifle innovation when “formal criteria” become more important than substance. When form (ritual, language, belonging) begins to replace content (openness, criticism, experiment), any system becomes vulnerable to stagnation.

7. Hierarchy and Caste System

Matrix definition: A structure of levels: the “knowledgeable” and the “uninitiated.”

The scientific community has a clear hierarchy: professors, associate professors, graduate students, undergraduates; academics and “popularizers”; scientists from top universities and from less prestigious ones. This caste system determines whose opinion carries weight and whose does not. For example, the opinion of a scientist from MIT is often valued higher than that of a regional university researcher, even with equal competence.

Furthermore, recognition as “one of us” often determines not only reputation, but also access to key resources—grants, positions, participation in conferences, and media attention.

Thus, hierarchy in science is not only a system of symbolic capital but a real mechanism for distributing opportunities.

8. “Us–Them” Dichotomy

Matrix definition: Dividing into “our own” and “the rest.”

Scientific consensus clearly separates “real scientists” from “pseudoscientists,” “charlatans,” or “dilettantes.” This division is maintained through language (e.g., terms like “peer-reviewed” or “proven”) and mechanisms of peer review. However, it can lead to the exclusion of those who offer unconventional ideas, even if they are potentially valid.

9. Institution of Exile/Punishment

Matrix definition: Mechanisms for excluding “heretics” or “apostates.”

In scientific consensus, the institution of exile performs a dual function: on the one hand, it is necessary to protect the community from fraud, deliberate deception, and outright charlatanism—such as pseudoscientific “discoveries” or dangerous medical practices. On the other hand, these mechanisms can be used to marginalize new or inconvenient ideas that go beyond the established consensus.

In practice, the institution of exile is implemented through refusal of publication, denial of grants, dismissal, professional discreditation, and blocking access to academic or media platforms. Scientists who question “sacred” positions or cross accepted taboos risk being accused of “anti-science” and excluded from the community—even if their approaches formally meet scientific methodology.

These procedures become especially harsh when topics or ideas under informal prohibition are touched upon (see next section), or a vivid image of a “heretic” is formed (see section 11). As a result, the institution of exile functions not only as protection against fraud but as a self-preservation tool for the system, limiting the space of permissible ideas and creating an atmosphere of self-censorship among researchers.

Thus, the institution of exile in science is not just a shield against pseudoscience, but a structural mechanism that maintains the boundaries of consensus and strengthens the ideological integrity of the system.

10. System of Taboos and Prohibitions

Matrix definition: Clear prohibitions on topics, words, ideas.

In scientific consensus, there are “forbidden” topics and fields whose discussion is considered undesirable or “unscientific,” even if they formally fit scientific methodology. Such topics include, for example, alternative theories of the origin of life, criticism of widely accepted medical protocols, or hypotheses that go beyond the materialist worldview.

Of special note are taboos that question or challenge the fundamental materialist basis of science. Anything that goes beyond “everything is matter and its manifestations”—such as hypotheses about consciousness influencing material processes, non-classical approaches to the origin of life, research into anomalous phenomena, psychosomatics, or the placebo effect—is usually quickly labeled as “pseudoscience,” “fantasy,” or dangerous speculation.

Violating such taboos is a direct route to the activation of institutions of exile and the branding of “heretic.” As a result, entire areas of inquiry and research are artificially excluded from the legitimate field of scientific discussion, and any attempt to question existing dogmas faces strong resistance, regardless of the quality of the arguments.

11. Enemy and “Heretic” Figures

Matrix definition: Images of the enemy for internal solidarity.

Within scientific consensus, “heretics” are not only obvious outsiders but also recognized scientists who propose alternative or inconvenient theories for the mainstream. The typical path: violating a taboo leads to automatic marginalization, regardless of the scientific merit of the approach.

A vivid example is debates on the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics: proponents of ideas about consciousness affecting the collapse of the wave function, or about the observer’s participation in forming reality, are often subjected to harsh criticism and public discreditation.

Researchers such as Rupert Sheldrake, who question fundamental dogmas of materialist science (e.g., the morphic resonance hypothesis), as well as proponents of alternative medicine and those raising questions about psychosomatics, the placebo effect, or new approaches to treatment, share similar fates.

Such “enemies” are used to rally the scientific community and confirm its rightness: through public condemnation or ironic ridicule, they are turned into symbols of danger and delusion. This approach facilitates internal mobilization and maintains the narrative of “good versus evil,” but at the same time oversimplifies real scientific debate, depriving it of the necessary complexity and openness to new ideas.

12. Propaganda of Uniqueness

Matrix definition: Conviction in the exclusive truth of the system.

Scientific consensus often presents itself as the only path to truth, while other approaches (such as traditional knowledge or intuitive methods) are seen as delusions. This sense of exclusivity strengthens trust in science but can lead to ignoring alternative sources of knowledge.

13. Self-Reproducing Language

Matrix definition: A set of terms, clichés, slang, understandable only to “insiders.”

Scientific consensus uses specialized language: “statistically significant,” “peer-reviewed,” “evidence base,” and so on. This professional language enables science to accumulate, structure, and transmit complex knowledge, ensuring the continuity and growth of disciplines. Without such a tool, collective work in complex fields would be impossible—language facilitates communication among peers, saves intellectual effort, and maintains high standards.

At the same time, this language inevitably creates a barrier for “outsiders” and affirms belonging to the community. It serves as a tool for defending the system from external criticism:
— “If you don’t know the terminology, you’re not qualified to criticize our findings.”

As a result, criticism from “non-initiates” is automatically disqualified as incompetent, while internal uncertainties or research weaknesses can be concealed behind complex vocabulary, especially if terms are used uncritically.

Conclusion

Analyzing scientific consensus through the ideology matrix shows that it possesses many features of a closed system of thought. While science strives for objectivity, social and structural mechanisms—authorities, rituals, exclusion of “heretics”—make it vulnerable to ideologization. This does not mean scientific consensus is false, but it highlights the importance of a critical approach even to “universally accepted” truths. Understanding these mechanisms helps us see science not as a monolith, but as a dynamic system that requires constant reflection and openness to new ideas.

The most effective way to maintain the health of science is not to reject consensus as such, but to develop an environment where criticism and rethinking of consensus become tools for growth, not reasons for exile. The ability to integrate well-founded criticism is what distinguishes living science from a dogmatic system.

P.S.
Critique of scientific consensus is not a critique of the scientific method itself, but an analysis of its implementation in a specific social structure. The method remains a powerful tool for understanding, but the forms of its institutionalization are subject to the same risks as any other system.