More on the Left and Science...

[¿Que?]

Just a heads up. Most of this post is background information. You don't necessarily have to read all of it to have an opinion. If you're feeling lazy, you can skip to the last paragraph and the question.

As many of you may be aware, the Sokal hoax was instrumental in stifling any concerted effort towards a serious critique of science coming from the left. Nowadays, any such critique is likely to be labeled postmodernism. Yet, do we really understand what motivated the left down this road (besides sloppy academics and intellectual posturing). I find that there are two maybe three fronts on which the "science wars" can be waged from a leftist perspective. These are:

1. The historical appropriation of science by and for the benefit of capital.

2. The racial and gender composition of science.

3. (The most complex) The epistemology of science itself.

The first critique is quite obvious. It includes the use of science to create weapons and machinery. The second has to do with the fact that most scientists are or have historically been white, heterosexual, men. Although, it should be noted that these days, science has advanced to the extent that many scientists in the U.S. come from the east. Also, it should be noted that there have been moments in history where the ethnic composition of science was not European. Finally, science may have never advanced without at the very least, the influence of women, and at most, the expropriation or presentation of the ideas of women by men.

The third most complicated attack on science is where the accusations of postmodernism arise. It involves challenging the foundations of scientific inquiry as characteristic of a particular epistemology, namely, one rooted in the experiences and habits of those in a privileged position within society. Many say objectivity, logic, and reason are in an abstract way true. That is, their truth is not reliant on context, point of view or experience. The main force challenging this point of view is postmodernism, but let's examine how far postmodernism has advanced. Some claim truth to be constructed through the processes of "the social". Nietzsche introduced truth as a power equation. We also have "interpretive communities", "cultural relativism", among other ideas which challenge the truth of truth.

But all that is just exposition. The question posed by this thread involves specifically one assumption which Sokal I believe categorically rejects (at the very least as much is implied by his paper), but which can be seen embraced by the left as far back as Marx himself. What Sokal rejects is the idea that we can use scientific discoveries to reinforce the political views of the left. In other words, much in the way in which Marx saw Darwin's theory of natural selection as reinforcing his belief in the class struggle and historical materialism. This was the whole "hoax" about Sokal's paper (aside from being intentionally factually incorrect at times).

Question time:
Should the left look to science to reinforce/justify its positions (and I mean the natural sciences, not social sciences).

Or to put it another way: Can it be said that there are political implications in scientific discoveries (such as quantum physics for example).

[Meridian]

Question time:
Should the left look to science to reinforce/justify its positions (and I mean the natural sciences, not social sciences).

I doubt that will happen to any large degree. Besides any 'scientific' discoveries actually made by comrades, I doubt 'natural scientists' will frame any discoveries in such a manner that really promotes revolutionary leftism.



Or to put it another way: Can it be said that there are political implications in scientific discoveries (such as quantum physics for example).
Yes, there are obvious political implications, and less obvious economical incentives, usually. What counts as valid scientific theories tend to change all the time, so it doesn't take a very inclusive historical view before you realize that it isn't quite as neutral as one would wish. I would think that most of the theories scientists are operating with today describes very well that relation Marx noted: "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class".

[CartCollector]

The Left should look to science to back its opinions. For instance, science proves that it is possible to produce enough food to feed everyone, but not everyone is fed. Not to mention that science improves our knowlege over time, allowing us to produce more goods more efficiently, but all production ends up mirroring the food market- goods aren't allocated sensibly.

[¿Que?]

I doubt that will happen to any large degree. Besides any 'scientific' discoveries actually made by comrades, I doubt 'natural scientists' will frame any discoveries in such a manner that really promotes revolutionary leftism.


Yes, there are obvious political implications, and less obvious economical incentives, usually. What counts as valid scientific theories tend to change all the time, so it doesn't take a very inclusive historical view before you realize that it isn't quite as neutral as one would wish. I would think that most of the theories scientists are operating with today describes very well that relation Marx noted: "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class".
This has always been one of my favorite quotes of Marx. If I understood you correctly, you are basically reinforcing the third criticism of science. Basically that ideas, including scientific ones, are a reflection of the ruling elite. However, science claims to be grounded on objectivity, reason, and logic. These transcend any class differences, for they are true regardless of context (so are we led to believe). How would we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

[¿Que?]

The Left should look to science to back its opinions. For instance, science proves that it is possible to produce enough food to feed everyone, but not everyone is fed. Not to mention that science improves our knowlege over time, allowing us to produce more goods more efficiently, but all production ends up mirroring the food market- goods aren't allocated sensibly.
This actually points to a shortcoming in my original post, in that there is no clear distinction between the social and natural sciences, sometimes. The issue of food distribution is primarily an economic one (social science) however, food production and transportation could be considered within the purview of the natural sciences.

[Philzer]

Hi!

Postmodernism can get dangerous for the left.
Postmodernism is no unitary philosophical stream but more a political philosophical pseudo science.

It seeks to give the Pantheism of capitalism a serious appearance. It can be seen as a social theory (ethic) of Pantheism in which the democratic principle counts “there is no truth – but opinions only”.



Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For a take down of Sokal, and his 'hoax' (and much more), check these essays out:

http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/

[Cal Engime]

Discoveries in the natural sciences only affect the social sciences in that they lead to technological progress and an increase in material comfort.

Why do you think that there is less homosexuality among scientists than in the general population, agustin?

[¿Que?]

Discoveries in the natural sciences only affect the social sciences in that they lead to technological progress and an increase in material comfort.

Why do you think that there is less homosexuality among scientists than in the general population, agustin?
Well, maybe not less homosexuality, but rather, an environment of heteronormativeness. Please, if you would like to provide a list of world renowned openly homosexual scientists, by all means. I think most will be from the last few decades, though, and the farther back you go the less you'll find.

[Cal Engime]

They should be hard to find in any period of history. The incidence of homosexuality in the U.S. population is what, 5% at most? And only a very small fraction of people become world-renowned scientists.

There is the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals (I would post a link, but my post count is too low), though. If anything, I have found the highly educated to be more tolerant of homosexuality than most.

[¿Que?]

They should be hard to find in any period of history. The incidence of homosexuality in the U.S. population is what, 5% at most? And only a very small fraction of people become world-renowned scientists.
Can we even say that 5% of all scientists are homosexual? We can put aside the issue that most likely their contributions are not being totally acknowledged, particularly as contributions made by gay or lesbian scientists.


There is the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals (I would post a link, but my post count is too low), though. If anything, I have found the highly educated to be more tolerant of homosexuality than most.
I'm sure there are also associations for women scientists and scientists of color. Does this actually change the demographic makeup of a) scientists recognized for their accomplishments or b) the general composition of the scientific establishment. I don't think so.

It is true that there is a correlation with tolerance and education levels, but then again, there is also a correlation between patriarchal attitudes (such as heterosexism) and demographically male dominated groups. In fact, to say that highly educated people are more tolerant of homosexuality really says very little about the natural sciences.

Have a look at this crosstabs of gender and education. Now do you really think this is the composition of the natural sciences in terms of sex?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=606&pictureid=5445

On thing that did surprise me, though. The the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionalswas founded in 1983. A lot earlier than I would've guessed.

[Cal Engime]

Men dominate scientific research for the same reason that they dominate prisons: wider variation in natural ability. 71% of the 99th percentile is male. Men and women also exhibit behavioural differences that influence the fields they choose to go into despite equal ability, with men preferring mathematics, engineering, and physical science while women go into fields like psychology and biology.

I'm inclined to think that racial differences in education level would be due to the different value placed on education in different cultures; Asian parents, for example, are notorious taskmasters. I've known friends to be thrown out on the street by their immigrant parents for getting Cs, even Bs. Ultimately, I think how far you go will be determined by how involved your parents are in your education.

Anyone who thinks I'm a sexist can go to hell. Politics have no place in science.

And after some thought, the only prominent gay scientist I can think of is Alan Turing, the father of computer science, who committed suicide in 1954 after being convicted of gross indecency.

References on gender differences:

M.F. Shaycroft, J. T. Dailey, D. B. Orr, C. A. Neyman, S. E. Sherman, Studies of a Complete Age Group-age 15, Project Talent Office, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa 1963

Lubinski, D. & Benbow, C. P., Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math/science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61-66, 1992.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Good luck comrade, you'll probably be restricted for those comments.:(

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Or to put it another way: Can it be said that there are political implications in scientific discoveries (such as quantum physics for example).

I don't see how quantum physics has political implications, to use your example. Humans are macroscale objects.

Although I do believe that scientific discoveries have implications for how we go about achieving our aims, as opposed to determining our actual aims. This is because I suspect that outside of human value judgements, all goals are ultimately arbitrary.

[RED DAVE]

One of the reasons portions of the Left, alas, have been and are antiscience has to do with the identification of scientists with the ruling class during the Cold War. There arose a species of rationalism (science writer James R. Newman called it "crackpot realism") that was used to justify the role of the US in the Cold War and its policy towards nuclear war, Vietnam, etc.

As a result of this, potions of the New Left (not the Old Left) evolved a nonrational approach to politics that has plagued us ever since.

RED DAVE

[¿Que?]

One of the reasons portions of the Left, alas, have been and are antiscience has to do with the identification of scientists with the ruling class during the Cold War. There arose a species of rationalism (science writer James R. Newman called it "crackpot realism") that was used to justify the role of the US in the Cold War and its policy towards nuclear war, Vietnam, etc.

As a result of this, potions of the New Left (not the Old Left) evolved a nonrational approach to politics that has plagued us ever since.

RED DAVE
Are you referring to the anti-positivism of the Frankfurt school, for example? I wouldn't exactly call that non-rational, though. I would argue that most people who understand positivism, will not favor it, and those who do, probably don't really understand it. I think the argument is that empirical data without a method to interpret it (theory) will not produce true knowledge of the world. Part of observation is the subjective exercise of making interpretations. Positivism fails because it denies the basis of observation - that is, making sense of sense data. Or to put it even simpler, observation implies an observer.

[RED DAVE]

One of the reasons portions of the Left, alas, have been and are antiscience has to do with the identification of scientists with the ruling class during the Cold War. There arose a species of rationalism (science writer James R. Newman called it "crackpot realism") that was used to justify the role of the US in the Cold War and its policy towards nuclear war, Vietnam, etc.

As a result of this, potions of the New Left (not the Old Left) evolved a nonrational approach to politics that has plagued us ever since.
Are you referring to the anti-positivism of the Frankfurt school, for example? I wouldn't exactly call that non-rational, though. I would argue that most people who understand positivism, will not favor it, and those who do, probably don't really understand it. I think the argument is that empirical data without a method to interpret it (theory) will not produce true knowledge of the world. Part of observation is the subjective exercise of making interpretations. Positivism fails because it denies the basis of observation - that is, making sense of sense data. Or to put it even simpler, observation implies an observer.No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a much more "popular" phenomenon that involved huge swathes of the population of the US starting in the mid-60s. It was a response to the relentlessly "rational" approach to mass murder exemplified, in theory, by the "crack pot realism" of Herman Kahn and by the "body count" approach to war, best exemplified by Robert McNamara, presidents Kennedy and Johnson's Secretary of Defense. It was also a response to the phony liberalism of the "New Frontier" and the "Great Society."

The whole hippy thing, which was rampant within the New Left, with flowers confronting guns, "Turn on, tune in, drop out," etc., was an attempt, using nonrational means to bypass the imperialism of the Establishment abroad and its phony promises at home. As a cultural phenomenon, it was tremendous and exhiliarating. (I was there.) But politically, in terms of rational discourse, and scientific thinking, it was a disaster. When the backlash, in the form of movements such as the Jesus Freaks began, or the true disaster of mass drug addiction or the flabbiness of concepts such as "do your own thing" became obvious, it was too late.

The thuggishness of American Maoism and terrorism of the Weather Underground and the posturing of the Black Panthers were all attempts to, one the one hand deal with this phenomenon, but on the other hand, they represented a capitulation to it.

I hope this wasn't, to coin a term, too "ranty."

RED DAVE

[¿Que?]

Not at all. :)