Suppose Andre de Ruyter's claims survive critical scrutiny and
ultimately become facts, and collectively the body of his facts stands. In that
case, they will, with or without our permission, constitute (scientific)
knowledge, and scientists will continually build the (scientific) credibility of
those facts through repeated citations in rigorously peer-reviewed knowledge
pieces.
Credible
or otherwise information does not make itself science nor correct itself; it is
the scientists who work with it that correct each other about it. It is in
that vortex of scientific interaction with information and its credibility that
objectivity raises its legitimising role. Objectivity, and fortunately for (scientific)
credibility, emerges through the exposure and interrogation of old assumptions.
Because
scientists enforce procedures and practices that ensure objectivity as they make
information and evidence that undergirds it, it should only sometimes follow
that society should not blindly trust in science. Instead, society should maintain
informed trust in the consensual conclusions of scientists (or the knowledgeable). This consensus, and
for as long as no new evidence refutes it, can be treated as a proxy of truth. We
must be wary of those scientists who step outside their expertise.
In
the science of information sharing (and potentially that of propaganda), Andre
de Ruyter does not seem to be a novice. He invoked the investigative prowess of
George Fivas and his team of evidence spotters and collectors to bring facts
into his credibility mix. To discount and discredit his rendition will be
inextricably linked with the credibility of the George Fivas outfit. This is
where Andre de Ruyter's book will stand for a long time as a proxy of truth for
what happened in ESKOM to a context-free scientific world.
How
the Fivas outfit managed the release of its report by showing the process it
followed and soliciting a legal opinion on the correctness of its procurement
is the part legitimisation of the entirety of the Andre de Ruyter story and
might be confirmatory that 'he found the problems there' and 'it was a hospital
pass as he labels it' in his book.
For
those who have an 'I won't read' relationship with the contents of Andre's book
or George Fivas' report, they are robbing themselves of the opportunity to know
which of his perceived lies are truthful lies. This is simply because "no
one knows which scientific truths will remain valid because all
assertions and conclusions, like scientific truths and ideas, face constant
interrogation and challenge. It is that evolution of truths, which not only
forms the nature of science but enriches our civilisation as humanity, that refutes
what we believe should not be a reason to reject it.
Notwithstanding,
the Andre book, if I wear other hats, is an exercise to exonerate the colossal
failure of what was hyped as messianic by a serial corporate failure in the
person of the author. It does not account for his failure to secure base load
as a 'electricity supply 101' for any CEO of ESKOM like all before him did. His
focus on making the policy decision of IPPs succeed under any circumstances,
including the wholesale collapse of the entire system, discounts in context
terms, the otherwise possible to declare as a proxy of the truth account of
what happened.
The most rewarding aspect of my journey into the world he wrote, and invited me and others, through the mechanism of the price set by his publishers, was an opportunity to know his version of what happened. It is too early for me, and arguably anyone, including those that did not read his version, to judge its truthfulness or otherwise. The book has put a brave proxy of whatever will ultimately emerge as the truth itself.
Difficult
as it has been to page through until the last page, an account by a person I
never believed went to ESKOM intending to make it work again; his unfolding of
the story was indeed captivating. What kept me going was my refusal to deny the
story an opportunity to be known by me, even if it was at the risk of
completely overhauling my perspectives as informed by what lies in many other
accounts. Throughout my reading experience, I ensured that my progress rests on
constant questioning, revising where it needed to be clarified, and duplicating
his assertions against tests of my prejudices, biases, and evidence. In the end I remain enthralled in my resolve that if everything rests on evidence and the
consensus of science, then his story deserves my attention, and it deserves
that of others wanting to either embrace or dismiss it. CUT!!!
Comments
Post a Comment