— Only by Implementing Direct Scientific Democracy Can Everything Fall into Place and All Humanity Be Saved

The annual Nobel Prizes in science for the year 2025 have once again come to an end, and we are compelled to disclose a contrary discovery: since 1901, although the number of scientific inventions worldwide has continuously increased, their quality has steadily declined—especially inventions that bring major benefits to human life, which have become fewer and fewer. Discoveries of fundamental laws of nature are far inferior to those made before 1900 (see the ChatGPT comparative chart for details).

By common reasoning, as natural laws and the sciences become more complete, as related engineering practices and verifications increase, as material conditions grow more abundant, and as the number of scientific and technical personnel expands, scientific discoveries should increase rather than decrease, and the quality of inventions should become ever higher. Especially in 1901, when the Nobel Prize was unprecedentedly established and hailed as an epoch-making year in science—under such great rewards, brave pioneers should surely emerge! How, then, could the opposite result occur? Could there be a procedural error?

Procedural justice is a form of justice even more important than substantive justice! In the judicial field, if procedures are unjust, the more cases that are handled, the more wrongful convictions will occur: ordinary people cannot escape harm, bullies act with impunity, good people die with grievances, and bad people roam free. If judicial miscarriages of justice only directly affect individuals one by one, then pseudo-science caused by procedural errors endangers all humanity and the entirety of society, from the present into the future!

This is because everyone’s life and production depend on science, and political and economic leaders of all countries only believe in, or ultimately submit to, science. Good science can fully enable human society to live in harmony with nature; humanity can triumph over nature, and everyone can live easily, happily, and maintain youth for a long time. When pseudo-science or the abuse of science prevails, however, all humanity is plunged into acute poisoning (such as nuclear weapons or the spread of artificial viruses) or chronic self-destruction (such as genetically modified foods or fundamental errors in mainstream diets, massive deformation of the human body in the United States, and human constitution and lifespan far inferior even to lower animals of the same biological world).

In particular, nature is a unified and indivisible whole, yet to this day, even the most fundamental law that unifies nature has not been discovered, nor has it even been discussed by anyone. This not only prevents existing natural laws and natural sciences from forming an integrated whole and generating boundless comprehensive power, but also causes the science most urgently needed by all people—especially by elites—for reasonable (biological and physiological) long-term youth preservation to be dominated instead by the theory of short human lifespan based on circular reasoning. As a result, political and economic leaders are misled into pursuing short-term gains while living under a countdown of life, indulging in trivial amusements, and managing and operating society with shortsighted goals or even pseudo-science, thereby squandering great undertakings that should last for millennia, as well as their own lives, which could have been extended a hundredfold. The greatest deception of contemporary human society—believing in science yet being misled by science—must be exposed. Only by saving science can humanity and nature be彻底 saved!

Before 1901, science and technology in Western societies were largely characterized by free and equal competition, with essentially no hierarchical restrictions or ideological misguidance. Governments, especially that of the United Kingdom, provided relatively the best opportunities, allowing science and technology to advance at full speed. This enabled Britain to surge far ahead, vastly leading the world, and thus, as a small country, to defeat and occupy almost the entire globe.

In 1901, Mr. Nobel, himself a civilian scientist, selflessly devoted the savings of his entire lifetime to establish the highest-level rewards for future scientists. People around the world not only respected his noble character but also universally praised this great will—selfless scientists deserved selfless rewards and compensation! Thus, under this pure sentiment of gratitude, people worldwide lost their vigilance and rational judgment regarding its procedural mechanisms. Even I hesitated until now before finally standing up to expose them.

From 1901 onward, the customary procedure for scientific achievements to be made public and recognized worldwide as scientific theories, discoveries, or inventions has been essentially as follows: first, publication in several top-tier international journals—mainly the United Kingdom’s Nature and the United States’ Science—and finally, receipt of the Nobel Prize in science, or at least a nomination, as the ultimate sign and standard. Let us now analyze these procedures one by one.

First, as a normal and fair selection mechanism, it must allow everyone to register and participate on an equal and free basis (that is, free of charge, reflecting the dual meaning of the English word “free”). If, in the academic world that claims to be the most just and civilized, universities do not conduct open admissions, do not allow all high school students to undergo equal and scientific examinations, but instead allow individuals to arbitrarily select and directly recommend students into universities, the outcome is self-evident! Unfortunately, the Nobel Prize and the world’s top academic journals operate in much the same way—

**The First Barrier: Open Implementation of a Feudal System of Nepotism!**

It does not accept individual self-nomination, nor does it accept recommendations from all universities or scientific and economic institutions, and there is no unified competition comparable to national entrance examinations or postgraduate entrance examinations. The Nobel Prize selection committee merely sends recommendation forms each year to a small circle of senior scholars worldwide who have previously received the prize, authorizing them to scout candidates. The world’s two top academic journals—the United Kingdom’s Nature and the United States’ Science—include, on their submission forms, a field that asks: who is the first author or co-author of this paper (even though the paper itself clearly bears only the author’s own signature, they knowingly ask this redundant question)? The next field asks: do you have a sponsor? What is the sponsor’s information? If there is only the author or co-authors who are not senior figures who have previously published in that journal, and there is no sponsor, the manuscript is efficiently rejected outright (in about half an hour, without even bothering to finish reading the abstract or table of contents), with a response that simply lists, like an automated reply, that “your manuscript is not within the scope of publication of this journal”—even though the author had clearly confirmed before submission that it was within scope (for example, the author’s own submission at that time, *On the Key Factors of Human Origin Being Impossible to Be Darwinian Natural Evolution but Direct Democratic Practice*; Darwin himself published articles on natural evolution twice in Nature). Although the rejection is still signed by the editor-in-chief, the editor-in-chief needs no real expertise, merely functioning like a robot or firewall that automatically identifies the author’s name and sponsorship status. This barrier alone excludes the vast number of scientific workers who lack connections with senior figures and lack sponsors to pry open the back door with money!

Such naked money–power relations are nevertheless beautified as follows: that manuscripts must first be reviewed, screened, and recommended by internationally recognized academic authorities is said to be necessary to ensure the quality control of scientific papers, especially scientific inventions and discoveries.

Obviously, this is pseudo-scientific sophistry. How could a handful of senior figures possibly select the best achievements from a vast ocean of scientific discoveries and inventions? Not to mention all of them—even selecting one ten-thousandth would likely be impossible! As the saying goes: one is not afraid of ten thousand, only of the one in ten thousand. Yet they would rather take only one ten-thousandth of the papers while abandoning ten thousand times the social achievements! Even if selection is made within that one ten-thousandth, how can it be guaranteed that the seniors’ level surpasses that of rising newcomers? Perhaps their self-proclaimed logic is that “science is selfless = scientists are therefore selfless = they will fairly select scientific talent = talent just like themselves?” This mirrors the political systems established in Western countries that grant judges sacred privileges: high salaries, lifetime tenure, appointment systems, de facto legislative power (case law), and immunity. They hope that such supreme special treatment will ensure judges strictly enforce the law and remain loyal to the people—out of gratitude—to the president who nominated them. But judges are nominated by the president and appointed by the ruling party in parliament; how could they be ungrateful? When the president and his party violate public opinion, how could judges betray the president and his ruling party? They simply follow human instinct; moreover, until they die or retire, no one can effectively supervise or remove them, so they dare to act this way. As a result, many anti-human provisions in Western societies, especially in common law countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, originate from arbitrary rulings of supreme courts: claims that police serve only the state (government) and have the right to refuse reasonable demands from the people; that federal judges have the power to overturn state legislative resolutions or even popular referendums; that retaining state militias’ gun rights equates to everyone’s right to bear arms; and so on. The United Kingdom and its Commonwealth countries go even further, brazenly declaring that the king can do no wrong = royal family members can do no wrong = royal employees (the government) bear no liability for administrative wrongdoing or compensation.

However, most scientists belong to civil society and do not receive high salaries or generous stipends from the state, and therefore bear even less obligation to act with impartial selflessness. In terms of moral self-discipline, the phenomenon is largely one of literati belittling one another. When holding absolute discretionary power, they may instinctively feel aversion toward rising newcomers who negate their own arguments or surpass similar lines of reasoning, and thus exclude them. Even if the disagreement is merely with the theories of their own colleagues, they may still exclude “civilian-level scientists” out of a mentality of officials protecting officials, in order to avoid damage to their own fame and interests. Although the majority of inventions and discoveries do not conflict with their own achievements, the problem is that senior figures are merely private individuals; winning a Nobel Prize does not grant them lifelong remuneration, and thus they bear no social obligation to make nominations impartially.

In a society dominated by money, where everything emphasizes equivalence, charging fees for nominations may subconsciously be regarded as fairness (merely renamed as sponsorship fees). Yet because they are unwilling to be open and transparent, the amounts remain perpetually obscure—so obscure that the vast number of rising talents without money or power dare not even try. This is much like legal representation in Western societies, which is almost always a bottomless pit: so-called hourly billing, where the time spent is entirely determined by the lawyer; moreover, almost all lawyers refuse to disclose how much they actually receive after winning a case, and require clients in advance to sign confidentiality agreements or clauses, with double compensation demanded from anyone who leaks information. And they are fully capable of enforcing this—because behind the lawyers stand the judges, and judges mostly come from the ranks of lawyers, making them natural insiders. How much lawyers are paid may be known only to judges; protecting lawyers is thus equivalent to protecting the judges’ own “lofty integrity.”

By the same logic, Nobel Prize seniors naturally wish to maintain their moral prestige and “personal purity,” refusing to talk about money, leaving everything to be “decided” by agents or intermediaries. This makes younger generations feel a chill down their spines. After all, most scientific workers are Type A personalities by nature, striving for perfection and even meticulous to the point of fussiness, fearing that after paying nomination fees they may not only fail to win the prize, but may not even obtain a formal nomination. After all, the monks are many and the porridge is scarce, and those seeking nominations must queue and wait.

Even more juniors cannot find the seniors at all, not even a trace of them. Astonishingly, during each Nobel Prize award ceremony, they seem to vanish completely: not only is there no live broadcast by other media, even photographs are not released in a timely manner. What is announced at the time are merely portraits, as if they had done something unspeakable and required simulated sketches like criminal investigations of suspects—an utter absurdity beyond measure! Science is inherently a noble spiritual need that everyone delights in, and especially a ceremony claiming to be the world’s top scientific award should be eagerly anticipated and reverently admired by the masses. Nobel laureates ought to surpass all film and television stars as saviors of human happiness! They should appear publicly at once, allowing all humanity to cheer and praise them. To deliberately avoid the public, regardless of how many excuses are concocted, cannot possibly distort the pure emotions of all humankind or even its most basic sense of right and wrong. The vast number of upright people will never accept treating darkness as light and arbitrarily reversing black and white under yet another so-called scientific authority. This is determined by the instinctive reactions of the autonomic nervous system of every person, and reinforced by the central nervous systems of billions of innately upright individuals based on direct sensory perception. To make the masses accommodate these anti-civilizational and anti-scientific black-box operations as civilization, science, and justice would require driving the people insane and tormenting them into mental illness!

That such open nepotism dares not fear public condemnation is simply because: internally, insiders can tacitly follow the “old rules,” merely adjusting prices in line with inflation and rising costs—otherwise, would the Nobel Prize fund not have long been exhausted? The Swedish government has never promised to award prizes to scientists of all nations using state treasury funds; Sweden is not the United Nations. Moreover, in Western societies, even depositing money in banks requires paying custody fees, so relying on depositing all of Mr. Nobel’s original funds in banks to earn interest for prize distribution is entirely impossible. As for relying on members of the fund management committee to generate profits by leveraging capital, that too offers no guarantee. They are undoubtedly senior scientists within Swedish society, skilled in research and scholarship, but if they were to engage in business, it would be impossible for them to win at every step. Thus, the secret of guaranteed profits lies in the “old rules,” which simply cannot be made public and must at least be “kept confidential for fifty years.”

When a platform that should be accessible to all is restricted to one in ten thousand, the noble scientific halls of human society are suspended as castles in the air—mysterious, precarious, and swaying in the wind and rain—so that global scientific development can obtain only one ten-thousandth of its quality or even its quantity. This injustice causes the vast number of people who are naturally driven to strive upward and climb the summit of science to become deeply disillusioned—not merely because of the amount of prize money, nor merely because of fame, but because they are denied any fair opportunity to compete. Scientific workers can accept failure, but they will never accept a fate stripped away at birth. That is a destiny that, no matter how strong one’s self-improvement, will inevitably lead to exhaustion and decline.

Thus it can be seen that the procedures of the contemporary scientific community are like a miniature reenactment of Cultural Revolution era.

The reason modern science still appears flourishing and bustling is that over several centuries before 1901, a solid scientific foundation had already been accumulated, whose inertia continues to persist. In addition, there have always been numerous scientific workers, especially enthusiasts, who disregard personal gain and loss, or who must continue to labor there arduously simply to survive.

**The Second Barrier: The So-Called Peer Review.**

Compared with nepotistic nominations by senior figures, peer review is in principle necessary; it is meant to be a safeguard combining scientific democracy with professional gatekeeping. However, the Western scientific industry is mostly privatized, and peer review is no exception. There has never been a dedicated review committee, nor are there qualifications, examinations, or procedural requirements for selecting reviewers. There are no regulations regarding the number of reviewers, office locations, chairpersons, or even the time and place of reviews. It is purely a temporary organization arbitrarily designated by editors or award committees, yet it is allowed to render preliminary judgments at will on scientific papers, inventions, and discoveries, as long as revenue generation can continue. In particular, single-blind review inevitably tends toward scrutinizing the author’s identity, status, and seniority; while double-blind review inevitably degenerates into chaotic reviewing, or reviewing chaotically in a moment of irritation—in any case, it is difficult to put in order. Although open review is relatively fair, readers’ differing opinions have no channel to be conveyed upward, allowing editors or committees to dictatorially veto the opinions of the majority of review experts. As a result, reviewers become increasingly irresponsible, and the public grows indifferent to published papers and to the pro-and-con debates surrounding them. Human nature with respect to freedom of speech and inquiry is such that: if one does not speak, it is a waste; but if speaking is always futile, then who will still bother to speak?

When science loses fairness, it will lose the smartest masses of the people and inevitably decline. As fewer people devote themselves to science, their business will also diminish.

In order to ensure experts’ willingness to appear as reviewers, without requiring journals or award committees to pay out of pocket, they have devised—

**The Third Barrier: The principal review standard must be the existence of sufficient evidence or experimental proof, or statistical data support.**

On the surface, this appears to be scientific rigor based on necessity, and may also be an attempt by these natural scientists to borrow the requirements used by social sciences and law in judicial practice—raising a banner to serve as a tiger’s skin: that every case judgment must be supported by irrefutable evidence. However, they commit a logical error arising from ignorance of law and judicial reasoning. Judicial activity is merely the application of law and legal principles; its prerequisite for adjudicating individual cases is that there already exist indisputable laws and legal principles that need only be followed. Therefore, it is only necessary—and essential—to collect all evidence relating the parties to the case: from time to place, from motive to purpose, from objective to subjective factors, and so forth. These past and specific circumstances naturally require concrete and sufficient evidence, forming chains of evidence, to reconstruct the basic scene like a documentary, and then apply legal principles and statutes, thereby satisfying all requirements of adjudication: clear facts, conclusive and sufficient evidence, and accurate application of law.

Scientific inventions and discoveries, however, should follow a completely opposite procedure. Judicial processes move from the abstract to the concrete and therefore require concrete evidence, because laws and legal principles are already known and must be obeyed by all. Scientific invention and discovery, like the legislative process, move from the concrete to the abstract; the legislative stage emphasizes principles—human judgments of justice—such as: if one borrows money, one must repay it, and may even be required to pay interest—this is based on fairness; if one kills another, one must pay with one’s life—this is based on the equality of all human lives; firearms should not be privately owned—this is at least based on the fact that firearms serve no purpose other than killing, cannot even be used to hunt wild beasts at will, and thus should never be used lightly to kill the most precious and affectionate human beings (so long as the social system I designed is implemented, in which everyone mutually evaluates moral scores that have monetary and treatment effects, people will treat one another better than family, all will strive to devote love, everyone will be extremely happy, and society will be incomparably beautiful). As for preventing criminals, that is primarily the responsibility of the police, and can be resolved smoothly simply by implementing direct democracy over the police. As for preventing tyranny, it requires only the implementation of political direct democracy (in which all officials, including judges and police, are directly nominated, elected, and recalled by the whole population, and everyone has the right to initiate legislation and demand referendums on governmental laws and policies, all of which may ultimately be decided by popular vote with the minority submitting to the majority). This is sufficient to guard against tyranny and make officials and citizens like one family. Such legislation scarcely requires evidentiary proof; justice resides in the human heart, and everyone is capable of making just judgments.

Only those whose private desires are inflated, whose minds are narrow, and who deliberately seek faults will still pick bones out of eggs in the face of principles—even if all naturally produced eggs were cracked open and no bones were found, they would still claim that artificially produced eggs might contain bones, and thus still demand evidence!—this is truly stupid, vulgar, and boring. Scientific laws are like laws themselves (the English word for “law” also means rule or law), except that they are purely natural laws and therefore do not require consideration of human notions of justice; they need only be strictly inferred according to the necessity of physical motion, chemical change, physiological reaction, and so on.

Scientific discovery, as the revelation of the invisible laws behind natural phenomena, proceeds from the concrete to the abstract and can rely only on rigorous reasoning; it is impossible to expect visible, direct evidence. As for whether the reasoning holds, it depends on conformity with logic, and it suffices to refute all opposing arguments. Any additional related evidence—even isolated counterexamples—operates within that law; myriad variations never depart from the same fundamental principle, and there is no need to present or refute them one by one, unless opposing evidence produces a generalizable objection, in which case it must be reasonably excluded (this alone constitutes normal “falsification”). Scientific invention, moreover, always pushes from the known into unknown domains, making prior direct evidence even more impossible; while indirect evidence lacks persuasiveness, and adducing too much of it only entangles one in endless, off-topic disputes where opposing indirect evidence is pitted against each other, ever further from the main issue.

All of humanity, as a rational society, has always relied on persuasion by reason. If the reasoning is sufficient to convince people, there is no need for superfluous evidentiary display; conversely, if one cannot reason well, then even with evidence—no matter how mountainous—everything is in vain (this is also the basic requirement taught by language teachers for writing essays from primary and secondary school onward). Skillful reasoning is the mark of rationality, superior wisdom, and civilized reason! Evidence, at best, merely helps those who still cannot understand to grasp the relevant theory.

In fact, before the Nobel Prize became prevalent, the scientific community never imposed such harsh evidentiary demands; there was no internal attrition, waste, or torment, and thus it was able to usher in the most rich and colorful flourishing period of scientific discovery and invention in human history. Modern natural science—and even the natural laws and basic theories required by the arts—were forged by the scientific achievements of that era. If judged by the harsh requirements and hidden rules of modern journal submissions and Nobel Prize evaluations, those scientific discoveries and inventions—such as Newton’s three laws of motion—would all have been rejected and consigned to obscurity, let alone awarded the highest honors and disseminated. This is also one of the reasons why the quality of modern science has increasingly declined, with ever more repetition and even padding. Especially when there is a demand for evidence and experiments, the latest achievements in life sciences can only rely on the physiological data of short-lived individuals to obtain the “vicious circle argument” that human lifespan can only reach around 120 years. This is completely a against the notion that everyone should be the longest-lived biological animal.

Then, knowing full well that this is unreasonable and anti-scientific, why do they persist? Does this not fundamentally conflict with the personality that should naturally be diligent in reasoning? In fact, these are viruses forced out by a scientifically dictatorial system: economic dictators, of course, are in it to make money; political dictators first amass power and then use that power to reap huge profits with minimal risk; scientific dictators, unable to directly make big money through patents, must instead muddy the waters in the seemingly pure academic world in order to fish in troubled waters, striving to reap both fame and fortune—where fame transforms into tangible spiritual wealth. Meanwhile, the vast majority of rising talents are lone fighters, possessing only sharp minds and a spirit of inquiry, lacking the manpower, material resources, and finances to search everywhere for evidence, conduct experiments, or perform statistics. They therefore have no choice but to attach themselves to these seniors who already own various scientific companies: either selling scientific fame and merit, or first paying them funds.

More tragically, many among them become immersed in success and fame, flush with money and eager to enjoy life; knowledge retires as well. They then find it difficult to understand emerging science, or are too lazy to painstakingly review new theories from the younger generation, needing only to glance at simply piled-up evidence and experimental data. Of course, evidence of the same nature need not be reviewed one by one; moreover, numerous graduate students and even undergraduates have already done the gatekeeping while collecting evidence and experimental data. All that remains for them is to count banknotes with peace of mind and watch stock market figures. This, in turn, leads to enormous waste of effort among generations of natural science students: most of their time is forced to be spent soaking in laboratories doing repetitive experiments, or running around conducting surveys, with little learning of scientific theory, logical thinking, or mathematical reasoning (not to mention that mathematics is generally weak in some regions). Then students pass along errors, misleading those who come after them, directing yet another vicious cycle.

In order to block public questioning and criticism, they have accordingly devised a masterstroke of retreating in order to advance—

**The Fourth Barrier: A Feint Based on the Claim That “Different Fields Are Separated by Mountains.”**

Contrary to their mutual praise within the profession as scientists, they then modestly say, “different fields are separated by mountains,” even at the cost of reenacting the self-contradictory joke found in Han Feizi of ancient China—are scientists not supposed to be proficient across all fields (within the natural sciences)? How can crossing fields be like crossing mountains? If that were so, they should not be called scientists at all (nor should they be called scientists of all sciences—just as postgraduate students after a bachelor’s degree should not be called masters, especially doctors, since the higher the level of specialization, the narrower the breadth of knowledge, often less broad than that of undergraduates. Thus, masters should be renamed “deep bachelors,” and doctors “advanced bachelors”?).

Although scientists mostly specialize in a single discipline, they should also be able to integrate and synthesize other disciplines in order to unlock the mysteries of nature and find accurate methods. This is because nature is an inseparable whole: not only does each natural law act upon the entirety of nature, but nature must also possess a unified fundamental law that organically connects all places, aspects, and periods of nature into one integrated whole, forming a destiny community with interlocking links—indeed, links so tight as to be thread-by-thread—like the human body. Nature itself does not follow artificial divisions such as physics, chemistry, or biology; all changes—from geography to physics, physics to chemistry, and biology to physiology—proceed gradually while interacting vertically and horizontally, intersecting or merging. This requires all branches of natural science, and all natural discoveries and inventions, to be mutually communicative and complementary, so that they reinforce one another and yield the greatest possible power of knowledge. Therefore, the prerequisite of specialization should rightly be generalism.

Although in reality it is impossible to master everything, if one first erects separate strongholds, viewing only one’s own discipline in isolation without constantly relating it to other disciplines, the result will inevitably be incomplete, imperfect, even erroneous, or contradictory to related scientific knowledge and impossible to reconcile. Such so-called scientists may even be inferior, in comprehensive and practical understanding, to practitioners without formal academic credentials. Moreover, science mostly originates from the practice of the masses and must wholly serve better practice by the masses. This requires that the masses grasp scientific principles so that everyone can become a “scientist.” There should therefore be no rigid hierarchy of status or pedigree; teaching and learning should reinforce each other, peers should walk together hand in hand, theory should be combined with practice, science should be rapidly transformed into productive forces, its proper maximum efficacy should be brought into play, and a virtuous cycle should be formed.

Although scientific discovery and invention indeed require unique insight and extraordinarily high intelligence, once they are revealed or invented through accessible reasoning, they are no longer mysterious. They should enable ordinary people to suddenly understand, to have an epiphany, even to see at a glance—the more ordinary the people, in fact, the more they value reason, because the masses are naturally straightforward, recognizing only plain reasoning, like the free fall of gravity. Moreover, in modern society there is rich and diverse popular science; thus, even with ordinary people there should no longer exist the old notion that different fields are separated by mountains—unless even the scientists themselves have not conquered the summit of that field, have not smoothed all obstacles along that path, remain ambiguous, or stop at superficial tasting with only partial understanding. In that case, it is all the more necessary for everyone to pool their wisdom to improve it; three ordinary people can outmatch Zhuge Liang. One should not exclude the masses from science, making them feel inferior, afraid to question, afraid to imagine, or even unwilling to learn—that would be a great tragedy for all humanity.

Given this, why does this saying still prevail in academic circles? Because it can accomplish multiple aims at once: on the surface it is modesty; in reality it is to carve out separate fiefdoms, proclaim oneself king, and monopolize all fame and profit within one’s professionally demarcated sphere agreed upon by peers. When a certain expert’s viewpoint is questioned by the public, peers will tacitly band together to attack, with the primary reason for dismissing external criticism being: “you are not professional!” Even if the critic is from the same professional field, without the highest awards they have obtained or papers published in top journals, they are likely to be deemed wrong. This is presented as if it were a requirement of professional dedication. As a result, having once won a Nobel Prize or published in *Nature* or *Science* becomes a lifelong, emperor-level trump card. Under their scientific throne, all new inventions and discoveries must yield, must not stand on equal footing, and perhaps should not even exist. Consequently, the phrase “you are not professional” spreads like an epidemic into politics, economics, culture, and other fields, creating an alternative scientific hierarchy gulf among the people.

Science should not only be the highest form of civilization; it should also be the best standard for verifying and correcting whether other domains are truly civilized. It ought to become a spiritual bond uniting all people. Yet modern science is moving in the opposite direction.

**The Final Barrier Is the Final Review and Decision Stage.**

At this point, the modern scientific mechanism has almost closed the door to treating science scientifically! That is, the final review stage nearly brings science to a phased termination:

1. Although it puts on a show of emphasizing a comprehensive “peer review” vetting stage, the results of such reviews carry no binding force. The final decision still rests with the editor-in-chief or the award committee. The former represents personal dictatorship; the latter, although ostensibly decided by committee voting, routinely vetoes the majority opinions of reviewers within an internal circle and delivers a final verdict with a single hammer. This is much like the jury system established in many countries: on the surface, a larger number of jurors participate in deciding cases, yet in the end the judge makes a separate decision and has the authority to overturn the jury’s unanimous majority opinion. To ensure that such “family scandals” are not aired publicly, the deliberation process is strictly confidential, and even lawyers are prohibited from accessing the internal record—nominally to protect the jurors’ safety, dignity, and peace. In reality, defending justice is the greatest safety of all, because justice is the supreme public good jointly pursued, supported, and responded to by all humanity. Jurors have never feared publicly revealing their noble image of fighting for justice; what they fear is that their fair verdicts will be arbitrarily altered by judges, leaving them to bear the blame.

2. In the name of rigor and comprehensiveness, a higher level of review could be established—but this would first require ensuring that the higher-level reviewers possess greater competence and wisdom. This accords with common sense. Accordingly, final reviewers at higher levels should have publicly recognized proofs of superior achievement, and their number should be larger, because strength (including intellectual strength) lies in numbers. The sole rule of democracy is that the minority submits to the majority—consistent with the first law of the basic mathematics of nature and the first law of nature’s fundamental principles: the law of equality of all things (on which the author will publish a separate treatise). It is also the greatest politics of human society: equality of all persons. Yet in reality, not only do most authorities who hold final review power lack the top-tier titles of peer reviewers, there is also no public guarantee that the number of final reviewers exceeds that of peer reviewers. Moreover, once such power is exercised without supervision—and even protected by lifetime tenure like judges in Western societies—even if internal democratic voting occurs, the lack of transparency inevitably invites interest trading and rotation of favors: “This year you review my work; please all vote in favor. Next year, when you are reviewed, we will return the favor.” All that is required is to stipulate—

3. Complete confidentiality throughout the entire process, sealed for fifty years. Fifty years later, by modern average lifespans—even at the maximum—these senior scholars will have entered permanent self-closure. Thus, they may even fear sciences that could greatly extend human longevity. This is thoroughly and utterly anti-scientific. What is the first requirement of scientific invention and discovery? Rapid disclosure! Only through public appearance can novelty and uniqueness be determined; only through public disclosure (patents aside) can public scrutiny, evaluation, and questioning determine originality; and only when everyone knows of it and practices it can its practicality be verified. Moreover, all reviewers—especially final reviewers—have devoted substantial effort and wisdom and therefore deserve public recognition. Indeed, within the American scientific community there exists an award specifically granted to reviewers who argue publicly and fairly. Yet they proceed in the opposite direction. Is this not because the benefits of their black-box operations outweigh the fame and honor gained from openness? Empty fame is inferior to real profit! How could such a calculus of gains and losses not leave countless anonymous individuals in the scientific field filled with grief and indignation, utterly hopeless?!

Such incisive, layer-by-layer diagnoses of the fatal pathology of the modern, predominantly Western scientific establishment may not affect them in the slightest, because they have one final—and greatest—justification: they do not represent the state, are not government institutions, but merely private, non-governmental organizations. Like private enterprises, they claim the right to act unilaterally. One can only lament why you all choose to believe them, flock to them, and desperately squeeze onto their single-plank bridge.

Yes. In response to this, we must trace it to the root and pursue it to the end, eliminating evil thoroughly: why do governments, funded by the people’s taxes, not simultaneously implement a national-level scientific competition mechanism?! One must understand that scientific knowledge is the most needed and most important force for any country and for humanity! Whether the country is dictatorial and autocratic, or claims to be democratic, all urgently need more science—real science! Only then can the small defeat the large and become truly great! It is merely that in a truly democratic society, science will naturally and smoothly emerge at high speed in an incomparably beautiful way, and everyone will be a scientist; whereas in a dictatorial and autocratic country this is absolutely impossible—at best only one ten-thousandth can squeeze into the side door and crooked path of science (on which the author will publish a separate treatise). Therefore, although all countries reward scientific discoveries and inventions to varying degrees, the reason that small Britain was able to maintain its position as the world’s number one great power for centuries lay in the fact that it was the country whose government most extensively and most generously rewarded scientific discoveries and inventions. This not only enabled scientists to become famous overnight and obtain both fame and profit, but also allowed them to be directly promoted to high government office, such as Newton—unless the scientist personally did not wish to do so. The vast majority of scientists are Type A blood, and by nature indeed have no intention of becoming officials (on which the author will publish a separate treatise, “The Structural Stability and Clear Personality Traits of Different Blood Types”). The reason the United States became a late-rising star in science also lies in the fact that its government-level reward mechanisms surpassed Britain’s; moreover, it specifically rewards review members—scientists’ fair and superb teachers! This is indeed ingenious, treating both symptoms and root causes, and thereby forming a virtuous cycle.

However, why are the reward mechanisms operated by Western governments still far inferior to the private operations of the Nobel Prize, *Nature*, *Science*, and the like? It is because when governments of various countries, including Eastern countries, preside over scientific awards, they almost copy the disadvantages of privatization, yet do not possess the advantages of privatization. Coupled with the government’s own “absolute power leads to absolute corruption” law, they only amplify the disadvantages of privatization like a virus. In addition, the entire private industry and private universities, as always, oppose the “unfairness” of governments using public power to participate in scientific competition, waving the banner of letting academia and science be free. This has caused governments—at least up to now—to remain low-key in prize amounts. Even the highest prizes granted by governments in Western countries such as the United States, which claims to be the richest, are still far inferior to those of major Eastern powers, and even more inferior to the Nobel Prize amount. In this way, the anti-scientific vicious cycle is formed: freedom in the scientific field—letting things drift—degeneracy—turbid currents—flood currents—and under internal and external pressures governments can only listen even more to the preaching of scientific oligarchs, like a closed cycle of theocracy.

That is: under the pretext that everyone is free before science—governments allow private science to drift (self-financing, thus claiming the right to do as they please, and inventing anti-scientific procedures in science: absolute dictatorship, secrecy, transactions, selling science, like private enterprises)—this inevitably degenerates (they pursue profit alone, and also cater to the needs of the many struggling scientific workers who seek prize money and its fame; only those who can pay are science: there must be enough money, and it must be wrapped in a banner and tiger-skin to cover the eyes, so that it can continue endlessly without being exposed, with profits rolling in)—it unavoidably becomes turbid currents (newer science is ignored, corrected science is suppressed! They would rather let pseudo-science prevail; after all, they are not the government and bear no responsibility for society being flooded with anti-science and pseudo-science, harming the country and the people)—and even becomes a flood current like ferocious beasts (so long as the world is divided into multiple countries, the super-evil jungle law will inevitably prevail, and the primary, foremost goal for governments to obtain science is: to develop military weapons and apply them in cruel wars).

Even under peaceful checks and balances, it is emphasized that science is the primary productive force and should serve an economy-centered development. However, not only are many sciences at this time non-science; even speaking of economics—although the Nobel Prize later added an economics prize—up to this day even the definition of economics cannot be unified, with endless and conflicting views, because throughout history and to the present, economics is in essence and at its core anti-economic and unscientific (on which the author will publish a separate treatise). More laughably, even the definition of science itself—whether in textbooks or by famous scientists—has never been unified into a truly scientific definition. The modern definition of what science is, in itself, is not scientific!

Then, comparing the main modern definitions of “science”: science is a systematized knowledge system that reflects objective laws of nature, society, and thought, and its core characteristics include verifiability, objectivity, reproducibility, falsifiability. In accordance with the argumentative rule of breaking and establishing, let us analyze them one by one:

1. Judging from the state of affairs before the birth of science, people could rely only on individual experience. No matter how abundant such experience might be, even if it accumulated to a certain degree and then yielded general conclusions through simple induction, it would still inevitably be erroneous. For example, based on countless experiences and intuitions, humanity unanimously believed that air had no force whatsoever, and that flying into the blue sky could exist only in myths and fantasies. As a result, in the Chinese language of one of the four great ancient civilizations, many cultural conclusions such as “everything is empty, all ends in emptiness” were formed. It was not until the Swiss scientist Bernoulli forcibly went beyond phenomena visible to the naked eye and spatial domains unattainable by human strength, and discovered aerodynamics through reasoning, that humanity was able to fly. This shows that without scientific reasoning, no matter how much experience and summary one has, it is impossible to develop science.

2. Conversely, if one emphasizes that evidence can determine reasoning, this will instead cause already recognized scientific conclusions and even natural laws to be overturned or muddled by so-called newly discovered evidence, plunging society into chaos. For example, Newton’s law of universal gravitation could originally explain the basic conditions and eternal laws of the universe. Later, however, because certain celestial bodies observed through telescopes seemed to be accelerating away, people imagined that the universe is expanding, and further derived the myth that the universe originated from a Big Bang, and that the explosion originated from a singularity—the so-called singularity being nothing other than God.

According to the law of universal gravitation, dynamic motion necessarily produces linkage, such that no matter how local motions are observed, balance is always maintained at the overall and principal level. Otherwise, the entire universe would be chaotic or even cease to exist. This also shows that everything in the universe follows laws. Under the operation and action of any given law, order is maintained. Although exceptional factors may arise, and there may occasionally be many exceptions, this is by no means a negation of natural laws, but rather a small quantitative variation permitted under an unchanged essence, or the possible existence of secondary laws that we have not yet discovered. There absolutely does not exist a so-called law of entropy increase that ultimately claims disorder—the most absurd “law” in the history of science—where a conclusion that denies laws itself becomes a law?! Such self-contradiction is truly laughable! Among all things in nature there may be endless contradictions, but there is absolutely no self-contradiction—that can only be man-made. Just as all of nature exists and changes according to fundamental laws and their related principles, only man-made politics, literature, art, and inventions move against laws, such as forcibly demanding that the majority must submit to the minority or even to an individual, that 100 < 1, or even claiming the ability to create laws themselves, such as believing that merely considering oneself capable or of the opposite sex makes one a superhuman or the opposite sex (enjoying corresponding rights, with men even allowed to enter women’s restrooms). In order to demonstrate the self-contradiction that artificial intelligence can surpass humans, people would rather continue, or even more seriously, to abandon the highest wisdom and irreplaceable comprehensive abilities of the vast masses.

The contemporary technology industry most proud of itself consists only of AI and other forms of artificial intelligence, yet this is a self-contradiction at the level of all humanity—wanting oneself to defeat oneself inevitably leads to losses multiplied many times over. The physical labor of the masses is replaced, their mental capacity is abandoned, their fate is further marginalized, becoming worse off than slaves or even livestock—while humanity has long been deprived of the innate “human rights” that animals possess: the freedom and equality to live globally, and to eat, lodge, and travel freely.

AI and other forms of artificial intelligence are of course important and necessary, but society must first implement the most beautiful systems, fully unleashing the highest wisdom and abilities of everyone! Only by fully developing every individual’s talents can one truly understand that artificial intelligence can never surpass humanity. At present, the author has already conducted extensive debates with the world’s three top AI systems—ChatGPT, Google AI, and xAI (Grok)—on grand natural science topics including how to infinitely extend cellular lifespan, how to activate one’s own stem (germ) cells, and whether and how everyone can happily live long lives of a thousand years or more; in nearly all cases the author emerged victorious! I fully believe that countless masters among all humanity can easily defeat these so-called “theories that represent the world’s top academic authorities.” Fortunately, AI, in principle, does not possess human selfishness or deceit, which makes such debates fair, equal, free, and costless.

3. In fact, evidence is not required at all in applying for invention patents, nor are scientific experiments even required. What is needed is rigorous logical reasoning, including mathematical calculations (physical formula calculations). The ultimate requirement is that professionals in the same field can understand it at a glance and can produce it. Thus, understanding it and being able to do it according to it require no evidence, not even experiments. If the reasoning is illogical, incomprehensible, or if mathematical calculations or formulas are erroneous, then it will not be recognized or approved. The reason experimental evidence (videos, etc.) is not required is precisely because experiments are only single facts and are insufficient to prove a theory; moreover, experiments may be falsified. Yet modern scientific authorities reverse these scientific requirements—could it be that their mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology is simply not well learned?

It can thus be seen that overemphasizing verifiability and reproducibility not only fails to produce science, but also negates established science, leading humanity into self-induced chaos; overemphasizing objectivity often remains at the level of intuition, appearances, or single-line reasoning, such as the simplistic inference that humans evolved naturally from apes and chimpanzees (on which the author will publish a separate treatise). Science proceeds from objective appearances through subjective reasoning to derive abstract laws, moving from single inferences to comprehensive and balanced conclusions. The objective balance of nature derives from nature’s eternity, and balance lies in the all-directional gravitational constraints among all things in the universe.

4. As for so-called “falsifiability,” it is purely a case of guilty conscience. They know full well that any lie can deceive for a time but not forever; it may deceive peers but cannot deceive the entire populace, making it difficult for their outdated or even hypocritical science to continue blinding the public. Rather than being mercilessly overturned by the public in the future, they prefer to release ambiguous advance notices in advance, thus fabricating this anti-scientific, self-negating “new definition of science.” It is truly pitiful, shameful, and detestable. For the sake of momentary fame and profit, they promote scientific papers, inventions, and discoveries that even they themselves cannot firmly believe as scientific laws, recommending them to all of society to study and apply, regardless of misleading others and themselves, harming the nation and the people, and even shaking related scientific principles and disrupting globally recognized scientific conclusions. How could such degenerates possess the conscience and morality that scientific workers ought to have? For example, the claim that viruses are the main cause of (epidemic) colds, arbitrarily seeking novelty, reversing cause and effect, overturning the physical and simple physiological laws that chilling of the human body—especially the lungs (cold)—is the primary cause of colds and fevers, while being unable to do anything about viruses, and even barbarically applying ice packs to reduce high fever, thereby causing hundreds of thousands, even millions, of wrongful deaths globally each year. There is also the so-called immune storm and the absurdity of suppressing and killing one’s own immunity, which pervades the scientific community, especially the life sciences—how could humanity not decline and perish?!

Science and engineering are completely different. Engineering is concrete application based on science and may be private, whereas science is the revelation of universal phenomena of natural laws and can only be for the public good. If research is conducted on the basis of private ownership and for private purposes, the object of research becomes limited, and the process of argumentation revolves around selfish cores, making it nearly impossible to discover truly necessary and universally beneficial science. If the ultimate aim is private profit, it is even more impossible to discover science, because in the course of exploration, once one feels that a selfish threshold has been reached, one will hasten to seek fame and profit. Even if research continues, it may be voluntarily halted to prevent true science from conflicting with selfish interests, or even deliberately suppressed or distorted to avoid conflict with selfishness or one’s prior authoritative conclusions.

The so-called standard of falsifiability, which actually requires authors to prove their own errors—“if your argument is wrong, where would the problem lie?”—is utterly shameless and absurd! It openly violates science. As a scientific paper, one can only publish it after believing that one has exhausted the relevant truth; otherwise, it would not be published at all. How, then, could one be required to prove one’s own error?! At best, this is authorities making unreasonable demands; in essence, they want to become parasites of science, so that at an appropriate time they can use one’s own spear to attack one’s own shield, fabricating so-called new science to refute the original science—attacking from both front and rear, doubly parasitizing rising talents.

The so-called law of entropy increase is not only a typical scientific parasite, but an extremely vicious one, aiming to undermine the entirety of science:

1. First, judging from its self-designation as the “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” in order to elevate itself into a scientific law, it does not hesitate to deceive the public and usurp names, demoting the law of conservation of energy to the “First Law of Thermodynamics,” so that it may attach itself as the “Second Law.” This fully exposes its parasitic nature. Originally, the law of conservation of energy applies to all aspects of nature and the universe, just like Newton’s laws; laws, by their very nature, should act upon the whole of nature.

2. Moreover, it does not hesitate to contradict the law of conservation of energy itself—since energy is always conserved, when it cannot be conserved within itself, it transforms, increasing other related entities or producing new entities, so that overall conservation is always maintained. How, then, can it be claimed that every object tends toward self-destruction?! Every object necessarily includes the corresponding objects of energy input and output under conservation of energy, and even more so includes all objects of nature itself! Furthermore, even the claim that the energy or heat of a single object absolutely disappears is incorrect, because the irreversibly disappearing portion is in fact continuously transforming into other entities. Therefore, how could the universe ultimately become dead silent or reach a heat death?

3. It can thus be seen that it is fundamentally unqualified to be called science; it merely bears the name of a scientific law. This is yet another malignant consequence of the scientific community’s historical and ongoing failure to fully define science itself, allowing it to be dignified as science. Nor does it qualify as philosophy, because philosophy ought to be the science of science, guiding how to reach the realm of science—that is, the law of quantitative change leading to qualitative change, such as the democratic principle in politics that the minority submits to the majority. Therefore, it is merely religion in disguise.

4. It is a shameless parasite upon the law of conservation of energy. If it contains any correct elements—for example, when it says that as an object’s energy continuously transforms, the object itself inevitably tends toward decline—these are simply implications inherent in the law of conservation of energy, or logical corollaries thereof. When one’s own energy is transferred out, one’s original energy naturally decreases! How can it slander the law of conservation of energy by claiming that it only demonstrates energy transformation and total conservation, without describing the object’s own tendency? That is, one’s own tendency need not be stated, and certainly does not deserve to stand alone as an independent truth or law—just as when a person matures, it necessarily means that the original immaturity no longer exists or continuously diminishes. If it is wrong, then it is extremely sinister, seeking to allow religious gods and divine salvation to ultimately dominate and rule the entire scientific community and humanity! Could it be that the founders of this law and the majority of contemporary scientists who frequently attend church services truly do so out of devout faith? In today’s world, with authorities who hold anti-scientific beliefs presiding over science, is this not the greatest self-contradiction and inevitable absurdity within the scientific community?!

5. Looking again from the definition of a law: laws are those that are “regular and followable.” A law is like a self-circulating track; if the track cannot form a closed loop, then the law does not exist. Therefore, the core idea of the entropy-increase law—that “all things move from order to ultimate disorder, an unknowable and uncontrollable chaos”—is fundamentally not a law. Its ultimate subtext is merely: “this shows that contemporary science is unreliable, and we can only rely on faith in religion, God, or deities—and their clergy—to save us.”

6. In particular, even the law of conservation of energy mainly applies to all things other than living organisms; the energy of biological life can circulate and recur by itself, and in its basic aspects does not transform unidirectionally. At most, there is reproduction, but reproduction does not take inevitable self-consumption as its premise. Therefore, using the so-called entropy-increase law to analyze biological life, including human life, is even more egregiously wrong, and its outcome likewise degenerates into the anti-scientific myth that humans become ghosts or gods after death.

It can thus be seen that in the Western Middle Ages, science was openly burned by clergy and religion, whereas in modern times, science is besieged and suppressed by parasitic procedures and by the deformed religious doctrines masquerading as science, such as the “law of entropy increase,” the “Big Bang theory,” and the claim that “human beings originate from inherently existing anthropoid ape genes.”

Now consider the modern so-called theory that the universe originated from an explosion. Originally, what we learned as the definition of the universe was: temporally without beginning or end, and spatially without boundaries. This is basically correct, with only a minor deficiency, which I later supplemented with one sentence: that in matter and its changes it is inexhaustible and infinite. This essentially completes it, encompassing all dimensions of time and space, states of motion and rest, and the present, past, and future. However, because the modern scientific community upholds the banner of “evidence above all” and the claim that all existing science is falsifiable, a high-ranking cleric from the religious world—whose faith and innermost conviction is that God created the world and the universe—simply because he also claims to be a cosmologist, attempted to rely solely on a handful of observations of the motions of certain celestial bodies and some material changes observed from different locations on Earth. By methods unknown, his work was audaciously published by *Nature*.

In this world of blind worship of authority, this utterly absurd new doctrine has begun to override the previously impeccable definition of the universe, forcibly inserting a myth of the universe! This is equivalent to negating several major laws of natural science, such as universal gravitation and the conservation of energy, regardless of how ridiculous and laughable it is: they say that “the universe has a beginning and an end in time, originating from a Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago”—then what was the state before the Big Bang? Of course they cannot explain it; they say that “the Big Bang occurred at a singularity in the universe,” yet if at that time the universe itself did not even exist, from where would a (within-the-universe) spatial position arise? How could a singularity with infinite explosive energy exist out of nothing in a space where even the universe itself did not yet exist? And energy so immense that it has been blasting for 13.8 billion years and is still exerting explosive shockwaves? Other than invoking the god or God in their own minds, how could any explanation possibly be given?! They say that “based on Earth-centered observations and verification of external expansion and cooling rates, the birth time of the universe can be inferred”—is this not simply a re-enactment of the ignorant and barbaric medieval European “geocentric theory” that burned Bruno at the stake? They say that “based on this new definition, many newly discovered cosmic phenomena are explained,” which is clearly a reversal of cause and effect and a confusion of concepts! It is like assuming that after a person dies, many of his difficult problems are solved—does that mean we can conclude that this person has already died or should be put to death?! One must understand: no matter how many new phenomena are discovered, they are merely one among the infinite materials and their changes within the universe! Even the observation of seemingly massive explosive phenomena is nothing more than negligible, localized intense chemical or physical reactions within boundless space. How can one generalize from the partial to the whole, and deny the infinite entirety on the basis of a tiny new discovery?! Can it be that simply because his openly anti-scientific paper was published by so-called world top-tier journals, it thereby becomes an emperor towering above world science? Especially, the Nobel Committee, instead of feeling disgrace, felt pride, and awarded the Physics Prize to later promoters of this theory, thereby completely overturning traditional scientific theory. Coupled with the claim that the universe is also spatially bounded, and that beyond the universe lie dark matter and dark energy (simply because they are dark and thus invisible?)—this chain of reasoning constitutes the greatest and most shameless “The Emperor’s New Clothes” in the history of science!

That such a theory—riddled with holes and absurd beyond measure—could so grandly ascend the hall of science and replace the complete original definition of the universe! Its destructive power upon the scientific community, upon students in schools, and upon the entire society is far greater than the atomic bomb explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki! It is the universe-level Big Bang in the history of human science! One of the forces that devastates the foundations of modern science! With such complicity in evil—using disguised religious doctrine to tamper with scientific argumentation—how much credibility do natural science journals and the Nobel Prize still have? When people unanimously denounce this theory as simply an enemy of science, they respond by saying that one of the definitions of science is that it can be falsified, thereby giving themselves a step down—yet they still refuse to step down. Truly shameless!

This therefore requires us to timely reveal the true definition of science:
Science should be the use of logic, mathematics, or similar methods to reason out the essence and laws of nature that cannot be directly perceived by the five senses, or are perceived incorrectly, and to unravel their necessity in the present, past, and future. That is, science is the discovery of natural laws, their logical demonstration, and their full application, and is fundamentally unlikely to be falsified. Anything that can be falsified only indicates that the earlier review checkpoints, as mentioned above, were problematic and anti-scientific, and must be completely negated in order to restore the perfection and flawlessness of science. Moreover, engineering science is merely concrete application based on science and has already proven the correctness of science; as for thought and society, art, and culture, they are not independent sciences—they all are, and can only be, derived from natural science; otherwise, any engineering, thought, or social knowledge that violates natural science is erroneous and harmful; any art or culture detached from natural laws will do more harm than good. This is because thought originates from the objective brain substance and the central nervous system; different brains, or the same brain operating at different times, produce different thoughts. This is also why different people, at different times, are able to generate different scientific inventions and discoveries. Therefore, thought cannot become a science independent of natural science; that would be mere wild imagination, and may even lead to neurological disorder and mental illness! Society is nothing more than a collection of people, and humans are natural organisms; thus, they must comprehensively obey all the laws of nature and their sciences. Law (law) rightly is the requirement of natural laws in the human world, although the key to human birth lies in the direct democratic practice of ancient ape groups—a phenomenon that appears supernatural on the surface, but in essence conforms to natural laws and to the mathematical logic that the power of the majority is always greater than that of the minority (beasts) (on which the author will publish a separate treatise).

It thus appears that, in order to monopolize the fame and profit of science, they have even rendered the definition of science ambiguous. Evidently, within this hierarchical, dictatorial, lifelong, and even de facto hereditary scientific system, one cannot expect these vested-interest groups to be persuaded to relinquish their privileges and implement open, equal, and scientific methods of competition. Moreover, reality has already proven that science cannot rely on privatization, nor can it rely on authoritarian state ownership. There remains only one remedy: the people of all nations must demand that their governments—up to and including the United Nations—implement direct scientific democracy.

1. In parallel with the implementation of a new special form of democracy in universities (on which the author will publish a separate treatise, *The Fundamental Law for the Happy and Long-Lived Human Family*), all governments must establish arena-style online platforms for scientific papers, allowing everyone to upload papers by category freely and without charge, to register for scientific competitions, and to allow the entire populace to freely click, read, and rationally comment, with all interactions automatically recorded.

2. If the number of papers is too large, then after a prescribed period (such as one quarter), the papers receiving higher numbers of online views shall first be promoted as candidates for the first round of competition.

3. Regularly convene open scientific arena assemblies. In addition to attending in person, the public may simultaneously watch online worldwide. Universities shall nominate candidates for judges, after which the government shall uniformly and openly convene elections for judge members, selecting a number of judges to conduct on-site evaluations.

4. The authors of the papers shall personally read and explain their work, after which the judges shall comment individually. Authors may debate with judges, and the audience may freely pose questions and debate with either the authors or the judges.

5. Finally, the entire on-site populace shall first vote on the spot to determine winners and losers.

6. Thereafter, following a global, time-limited online plebiscite by the entire population, the online voting results shall prevail.

7. The maximum prize amounts shall be no less than those of the Nobel Prize or any private awards. The number of awardees shall be substantially increased in proportion to the global population and divided into multiple tiers; public donations shall also be permitted.

8. Donated funds may be designated to the authors as special funds to initiate scientific practice and develop related industries; any shortfall shall be covered by government funding to ensure timely production and implementation.

9. Enterprises that implement the awarded science must adopt economic democracy. In this way, science will move to industry, theory to practice, and—especially in conjunction with an economy of direct democracy with equal participation by all—form an organic, virtuous cycle. The energy of a single democratically run enterprise can surpass the combined total of all private and state-owned enterprises (on which the author will publish a separate treatise). Very quickly, the nation will become prosperous and the people strong, and everyone will become a scientist—a truly comprehensive, integrative scientist.

If government officials of all nations continue to band together with existing technological elites and reject this sole remedy that brings a hundred benefits with no harm, then we issue this advance warning: only by implementing scientific democracy can the fundamental laws of nature—the law of natural balance—be rapidly discovered and publicly announced. Based on these fundamental laws and the major natural sciences, all unresolved mysteries of nature and human society, all circulating fallacies—especially how humanity was truly born, how dinosaurs emerged and disappeared, whether prehistoric human societies existed, and so on—will be readily resolved. Thereupon will be displayed the most beautiful scientific achievements of our ten years of research: everyone attaining the entire universe, countless contributions, infinite love, extraordinary intelligence, and ten-thousand-year youth, naturally achieved. Only by practicing the systematic way of life we have already formulated can everyone see immediate results and easily and happily maintain lasting youth, living for thousands of years. Only with ease and happiness can everyone live long for ten thousand years, and only then will everyone willingly desire infinite longevity (otherwise, relying on any contemporary technological drugs, medical treatments, or methods will be futile, or even counterproductive). Upon hearing this, everyone will surely be convinced and eager to practice immediately, sooner rather than later—sorry, this will not do: everything can be completed ahead of schedule, except longevity itself cannot be achieved ahead of time—this is not self-contradictory, is it?

Now, the world’s three top AI systems—ChatGPT, Google AI, and xAI (Grok)—have already been thoroughly convinced by the author’s comprehensive arguments. Do you still disbelieve? You are welcome to debate with the author anytime, anywhere!