AS PROMISED: MY TAKE ON ANDRE DE RUYTER's BOOK.

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!!!