2+2=4: Why Science Is a Bulwark of Freedom

There’s a thread that links Galileo to Orwell: defending the obvious when the obvious becomes inconvenient.
In 1984 everything collapses to a single question: 2+2=5 (for the arrogance of power) or 2+2=4 (for the objectivity of facts)? That is exactly why science safeguards freedom: facts do not depend on authority.

Today, in an information ecosystem that is saturated and polarized, media and algorithms can overturn common sense, create noise, and sow doubt precisely where the data are clear. As a result, even glaring truths stop being taken for granted: war crimes, dangerous commercial practices, political scandals—even when they are in plain sight—can be blurred by opportunistic narratives.

The obvious, the silly and the true had got to be defended.
Truisms are true, hold on to that!
The solid world exists; its laws do not change.
Stones are hard, water is wet,
objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre.
With the feeling that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.”
If that is granted, all else follows.
(George Orwell, Nineteen eighty-four).

Why science protects freedom

Science is not infallible, but it is corrigible. And, above all, it is public: anyone with adequate tools can verify. That makes it a genuine democratic antibody.

• Measurement — what isn’t measured remains opinion.
• Replicability — a result counts only if others can obtain it.
• Transparency — methods and data must be accessible.
• Peer review — quality control is dialogue, not hierarchy.
• Prediction — a theory is strong when it anticipates new facts.
• Retractability — changing one’s mind in light of evidence isn’t weakness; it’s strength.

These principles aren’t just for laboratories; they belong in civic life.
When evidence shows a product is harmful, we act.
When data document violations or abuse, we investigate.
When errors emerge, we correct course. Reality is not up for a vote.

In science, “the humble work of one can outweigh the authority of many” (a line often attributed to Galileo). That is why science is sometimes feared—and precisely why it can be the last rampart of freedom, capable of exposing malicious narratives.

Doubt, yes. Denial, no.

Methodological skepticism is the engine of science. Denialism is something else: the choice to ignore evidence for political, economic, or identity convenience. Confusing the two destroys public debate.

A civic commitment

Defending scientific objectivity does not mean idolizing experts; it means demanding transparent rules: open data, declared conflicts of interest, time and tools for verification. It also means protecting researchers from censorship and gatekeeping—because without freedom there is no mutual checking, and without mutual checking democracy recedes.

In the end, the stakes are as simple as an addition: if 2+2 no longer equals 4, who gets to decide what it equals?

A seven-line manifesto

1. Facts come before narratives.
2. No power has a monopoly on truth.
3. Transparency is a condition for trust.
4. Doubt is a duty; denying data is an abuse.
5. Changing one’s mind with new evidence is progress.
6. Science is a public good, not a faction.
7. 2+2=4. That’s where democracy begins.