His point is not what the definition of 'science' is. His thesis is that in the late middle ages society operated on a 'mutual credit system' (wikipedia it) of

His point is not what the definition of 'science' is. His thesis is that in the late middle ages society operated on a 'mutual credit system' (wikipedia it) of exchange where the merchant classes were independently creating and exchanging value. This mutual credit system was usurped for a centralized currency system where value creation is tightly controlled by the state (i.e. in the form of loans of a monopolized currency; what we have today). Centralized currency discourages cooperation and forces unnatural selfish competition between individuals, to the benefit of the corporate ownership. This unnatural state is reinforced as natural through corporate sponsorship of intellectuals like Dawkins and Pinker (even though if you read them both of these authors works are agnostic on this point). Then he makes an unclear point about how the internet changes all that.