Peter Thiel’s recent remark to Bari Weiss that modern science has become “more dogmatic than the Catholic church was in the seventeenth century” is a powerful observation about the state of knowledge in the twenty-first century. Thiel’s observation reflects the extent to which the institutions of science, once rooted in skepticism and open inquiry, have been co-opted by external forces that cannot tolerate dissent.
The two dominant forces behind this shift are corporate power and woke progressive ideology. Corporate power subordinates scientific inquiry to the demands of profit generation, prioritizing outcomes that align with market imperatives rather than seeking objective truth. Progressive ideology operates as a form of quasi-religious dogma that legitimizes itself by appealing to moral imperatives, often stifling challenges to its tenets as heretical or harmful. Together, these forces create a system where skepticism is not just unwelcome but actively suppressed, as it threatens the legitimacy of the power structures behind the institutions.
The transformation of science into dogma can be traced to structural changes within the scientific enterprise itself, particularly the rise of “peer review” in the mid-twentieth century. What is often portrayed as a neutral process to ensure quality and rigor in research, peer review in practice is a gatekeeping mechanism that enforces conformity to institutional norms and ideological orthodoxy. Peer review functions less as an arbiter of scientific merit and more as a tool for maintaining the status quo, ensuring that dissenting perspectives are marginalized. This parallels the modern phenomenon of “fact-checking” in corporate media, which similarly operates under the guise of impartiality but often serves as a mechanism for censorship. Both are methods of consolidating authority by creating artificial structures of legitimacy, obscuring their true purpose: the control of information to advance particular interests.
In recent years, these mechanisms have faced significant disruption due to the proliferation of alternative sources of information. The internet and digital media have enabled the bypassing of institutional gatekeepers, allowing individuals to disseminate knowledge that is not only independent of corporate and ideological control but also demonstrably effective in practice. True science, after all, is validated not by institutional endorsement but by its utility and its ability to produce outcomes that benefit the broader public. The rise of alternative platforms has exposed the inadequacies and biases of the traditional systems, undermining their claim to authority.
The erosion of institutional credibility, then, stems from the growing recognition that these structures are not neutral arbiters of truth but mechanisms designed to legitimize the goals of the powerful. By prioritizing corporate profits or ideological conformity over genuine inquiry and public good, they have revealed themselves as tools of domination rather than sources of enlightenment. As a result, the public increasingly views these institutions with skepticism, recognizing their authority as a façade masking authoritarian control.
Authority itself must be understood in this context. As Max Weber told us, true authority derives from legitimate power, grounded in trust and transparency, and exercised in service of the common good. In contrast, what passes for authority in many contemporary institutions is power legitimized through hegemonic techniques—practices that manipulate consent and manufacture credibility. Either authority is legitimate power or it is a cover for power. The latter is not authority but authoritarianism. In exposing these structures for what they are, i.e., mechanisms for legitimizing corporate and ideological goals to achieve ends contrary to the interests of the people, the institutions of science and the media have lost their authority.
Thiel hits the nail on the head, and the reason for the problem he identifies is that the institutions of science have been captured by corporate power and woke progressive ideology—neither of which can tolerate skepticism, since skepticism of their preachments undermines their legitimacy.
freedom and reason 
One question that comes to mind then is, how do we maintain standards in science practice and publication in a way that is not vulnerable to the problems which seem to be present in the peer review process?
We need to chuck peer review. When Einstein and others were publishing their work, there were no other physicians stymieing them with their own disbelief or ideas. Science is about presenting logically valid arguments coupled with empirical sound findings that lead to the expansion of knowledge (validated belief) and practical advancements—all of which makes no resort to God or other supernatural explanations. The theories scientists put forward either work or fail. The only constraints on the enterprise are ethical considerations.