Which is More Reactionary...

[¿Que?]

Justify your answer, and if you say because the natural sciences are more objective, then you have to argue why being more objective is less reactionary.

[Widerstand]

Which is more reactionary:

A screwdriver or a hammer?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'd say the social sciences. It's easier to spin "discoveries" in such fields towards reactionary conclusions.

[Sam_b]

This is like the question equivalent of "which is worse, getting punched in the face or kicked in the balls"

[Panda Tse Tung]

This is like the question equivalent of "which is worse, getting punched in the face or kicked in the balls"
Getting kicked in the balls. By far.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This thread is reactionary.

[danyboy27]

science is reactionary? yea, right:laugh:

[maskerade]

you can make reactionary claims from both.

i dont really understand the question. why does either of them have to be labelled as reactionary?

[Dimentio]

Social science students here find natural science reactionary, since they in general believe that to be progressive, you must first admit that there is no truth, only perspectives...

[¿Que?]

Which is more reactionary:

A screwdriver or a hammer?
Too abstract...

I'd say the social sciences. It's easier to spin "discoveries" in such fields towards reactionary conclusions.
Good answer, but I don't agree. How many missiles have been designed by social scientists? The reactionary conclusions of the natural sciences can often be quite deadly...

This is like the question equivalent of "which is worse, getting punched in the face or kicked in the balls"
This guy gets it!

This thread is reactionary.
I find your accusation that this thread is reactionary reactionary.

science is reactionary? yea, right:laugh:
Again, think concrete.

The question of control and accounting should not be confused with the question of the scientifically trained staff of engineers, agronomists, and so on. These gentlemen are working today in obedience to the wishes of the capitalists and will work even better tomorrow in obedience to the wishes of the armed workers.State and Revolution by Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)

you can make reactionary claims from both.

i dont really understand the question. why does either of them have to be labelled as reactionary?
The question makes sense when you consider science in its concrete manifestations throughout history.

Social science students here find natural science reactionary, since they in general believe that to be progressive, you must first admit that there is no truth, only perspectives...
Same as NoXion, good answer but I don't agree. The methodology for the natural sciences (and even a lot of social science as well) relies on ignoring some fundamental, unresolved, or debatable epistemological problems. A rare exception in the natural sciences might exist in quantum physics. In the social sciences, it is quite easy to find people talking about this stuff.

[Quail]

I would say it's probably more difficult to twist natural science to say what you want it to say, but bad science of any kind can be used to draw the desired conclusions.

[Invincible Summer]

This question is so subjective...

I mean social science's inherent subjectivity can be a detriment, but the natural sciences' "reason and logic" can be used as some form of authority over others, leading to things such as dysgenics and other fucked up science.

[revolution inaction]

social science, because it's pseudo science for people who aren't smart enough to manage really science :D

[Invincible Summer]

social science, because it's pseudo science for people who aren't smart enough to manage really science :D


:crying:


Well.... nuclei can't... feel

[¿Que?]

I would say it's probably more difficult to twist natural science to say what you want it to say, but bad science of any kind can be used to draw the desired conclusions.
True. But I think it's also more difficult to misuse social science as a means of waging war and oppression. Current economic theories indicate that it is possible to apply social science to mechanisms of social control and oppression, but all that fancy military technology, high polluting automobiles, factory technology etc all began as ideas which were objective, neutral, value-free.

This question is so subjective...

I mean social science's inherent subjectivity can be a detriment, but the natural sciences' "reason and logic" can be used as some form of authority over others, leading to things such as dysgenics and other fucked up science.
I'll admit, the wording makes the question subjective. Perhaps we could say, which is more destructive, or which has harmed or could potentially harm the workers struggle most. I mostly agree with your response, except for one thing. First, the social sciences are not "inherently" subjective. This misconception is predicated on two assumptions. 1) That human beings exist over and apart from nature. As such, the natural sciences can claim the researcher/research process as something external (and therefore objective) from the topic or subject of research. 2) That the natural sciences do not employ qualitative methods. In fact, I'm willing to bet my credibility that I could find a medical journal or some other natural science publication that has published an article using some qualitative method, most likely, a case study. While there is no doubt that the social sciences tend to rely more heavily on qualitative methods, and therefore, can be more subjective, they are no more "inherently" subjective than the natural sciences. It's really a matter of institutional norms.

social science, because it's pseudo science for people who aren't smart enough to manage really science :D
LOL. Sort of like the bass is the instrument for failed guitarists.:lol: Except, everyone knows 9 out of 10 guitarists have no rhythm. :laugh:

Let's not lose sight of one thing. Marxism is social theory. It is neither "inherently" subjective, nor pseudo-science. :marx: -----(You're hurting my feelings!)

[Widerstand]

LOL. Sort of like the bass is the instrument for failed guitarists.

Rootnote reductionist strawman.

[Pavlov's House Party]

there are just so many different branches of each that the question is rediculous. what is more reactionary, history or quantum physics? psychology or biology?

[gorillafuck]

Neither. There's nothing inherently reactionary about either.

[¿Que?]

Rootnote reductionist strawman.
Like every Pink Floyd song...

there are just so many different branches of each that the question is rediculous. what is more reactionary, history or quantum physics? psychology or biology?
...or can we even make a distinction? What is more reactionary, science or science?

Neither. There's nothing inherently reactionary about either.
There's that word again...

[Il Medico]

Which is more reactionary:

A screwdriver or a hammer?
Screwdriver obviously. The bourgeoisie use it to tighten the screws on the working class. Hammers are a revolutionary tool that the workers will free themselves with in the face of screwdriver oppression. With the help of Sickle of course. (Hammer can only beat back the bourgeois thugs, sickle is needed to cut them down.)

[Amphictyonis]

Which is more reactionary:

screwdriver ?

Ian Stewart?

[Quail]

True. But I think it's also more difficult to misuse social science as a means of waging war and oppression. Current economic theories indicate that it is possible to apply social science to mechanisms of social control and oppression, but all that fancy military technology, high polluting automobiles, factory technology etc all began as ideas which were objective, neutral, value-free.


The science behind all that fancy military technology can be used for useful things as well as destructive things, for example fighter jets and commercial planes. It isn't the science that is reactionary, but the people that use it, which can be true of both types of science.

Just because natural science is objective, that doesn't mean all of it's theories and conclusions should be taken as absolute proof unless real proof exists. Any conclusions drawn (in natural or social science) are the best way to describe the observations taken, but that doesn't mean that they are necessisarily 100% true. I think that human behaviour is more difficult to quantify and there are so many variables that can affect it, that it would be easier to miss a hidden variable that affects you analysis of the data.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This question is so subjective...

I mean social science's inherent subjectivity can be a detriment, but the natural sciences' "reason and logic" can be used as some form of authority over others, leading to things such as dysgenics and other fucked up science.

I'd say with natural sciences the fallacy is more obvious; just because squeezing plutonium in a certain way induces it into a super-critical state resulting in an enormous explosion, how does that justify setting one off in the middle of a city?

[Widerstand]

Like every Pink Floyd song...

If you just implied that Pink Floyd are one, if not the, most overrated rock bands of all time, I love you.

If not,
:confused:

[Raúl Duke]

I'd say the social sciences. It's easier to spin "discoveries" in such fields towards reactionary conclusions.

One of the most reactionary elements (or the most reactionary element) in social sciences have claimed natural science aspects; such as evolutionary psychology. You're correct if you mean that in the social sciences some spin natural science theories


Social science students here find natural science reactionary, since they in general believe that to be progressive, you must first admit that there is no truth, only perspectives... There's some truth to this statement, but its conclusion is flawed.

Certain social science fields do have a variation of this "perspective" view but rarely to reach the level that qualifies for the 100% post-modern "there's no truth at all" view. Therefore, I don't think many (virtually all) social science persons disregard the natural sciences in the way as you suggest (i.e. labeling it reactionary). However, it's not uncommon to see them as being weary at times due to science is not "something up in the air" but is affected by the society in which it arises from. After all, the physical sciences once claimed that races (and racial science) was a significant concept instead of a more-or-less arbitrary and flawed one plus also a flimsy attempt to use science to validate cultural prejudices.

Usually, the only times (to my knowledge/recently) a social scientist might use that "perspective" view negatively against natural sciences is against social sciences that are influenced by natural sciences, such as certain claims from evolutionary psychology.

[praxis1966]

I can't believe that this debate has gotten into a second page without mention of to glaringly obvious facts (to me, anyway).

A) The internet which we are all currently enjoying was initially developed by the US military as part of a missile defense system.

B) Social Darwinism

To me, it's all relative. Neither/nor would be my answer to the OP, but they can both be perverted (whether positively or negatively) depending on the motivations of the person utilizing the data.

[cska]

Depends how you go about doing either. For example, Marxism is really a social science. But neoliberalism could be considered a social science.