Notes toward a Marxist critique of Science

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, without dwelling too long on the title (since there are already plenty of threads about what constitutes an "authentic" Marxism), I'd like to try and advance some thoughts aimed at problematizing Science and its epistemological stranglehold, particularly on the radical left.
To begin, I want to put forward that science has a peculiar dual character, which science, as it exists in practice, tends to cover up. On one hand, there is Science (which I will continue to designate with capitalization), which has a particular historical, social, judico-political character (or characteristics). That is, Science has particular discursive elements (among scientists, in the academy, in popular culture), represents particular bodies of knowledge (presented as fact), and has certain material consequences (presented, in their accumulation, as progress). It is closely related to the European liberal tradition which emerged from the enlightenment, secularization, and the constitution of nation states in their more-or-less contemporary form (out of the end of "Christiandom").
The flip-side of science, science (which I will continue to italicize to avoid confusion), refers to a method, the consequences of which may or may not constitute Science, and, consequently, science in its full sense. This method, of testing a theory against reality, and allowing the results to speak for themselves is, of course, ubiquitous. It is only scientific insofar as it has a relationship to Science, wherein it is the object of a broader theory and practice.
In this way, science is not science when, for example, I reach certain conclusions by way of classical mechanics (the limits of which are now understood), but were undeniably science at that time they were produced. In this way, science is socially contingent.
Insofar as the social is not fixed, but is subject to the the activity of humans, as classes, and the modes of production with which they exist in a dialectical relationship (I mean dialectical here in a purely descriptive sense), science is necessarily inextricable from the modes of production which bring it in to being, and bares with it a particular class content.

To avoid making this in to a tl;dr post, I'm going to stop here, and let the shitshow begin.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So, without dwelling too long on the title (since there are already plenty of threads about what constitutes an "authentic" Marxism), I'd like to try and advance some thoughts aimed at problematizing Science and its epistemological stranglehold, particularly on the radical left.

If the "stranglehold" of science among the radical left is a problem (how? You don't elaborate) then what do you propose instead? Mysticism?


To begin, I want to put forward that science has a peculiar dual character, which science, as it exists in practice, tends to cover up. On one hand, there is Science (which I will continue to designate with capitalization), which has a particular historical, social, judico-political character (or characteristics). That is, Science has particular discursive elements (among scientists, in the academy, in popular culture), represents particular bodies of knowledge (presented as fact), and has certain material consequences (presented, in their accumulation, as progress).

These being... ?


It is closely related to the European liberal tradition which emerged from the enlightenment, secularization, and the constitution of nation states in their more-or-less contemporary form (out of the end of "Christiandom").

Heaven forfend! Ideas have geo-historical roots? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!


The flip-side of science, science (which I will continue to italicize to avoid confusion), refers to a method, the consequences of which may or may not constitute Science, and, consequently, science in its full sense. This method, of testing a theory against reality, and allowing the results to speak for themselves is, of course, ubiquitous. It is only scientific insofar as it has a relationship to Science, wherein it is the object of a broader theory and practice.
In this way, science is not science when, for example, I reach certain conclusions by way of classical mechanics (the limits of which are now understood), but were undeniably science at that time they were produced.

Classical mechanics is still a part of Science and science. Other theories such as quantum mechanics and relativity are used when classical mechanics is no longer an accurate model, e.g. really small scales (QM) or really large masses/distances (relativity)

In fact, classical equations are still used by NASA when plotting the missions of spacecraft and probes - they could use relativistic equations, but at the scales and speeds that NASA spacecraft typically operate, you get pretty much the same results using more complicated mathematics. So, to keep the sums easier to check, they use classical orbital calculations. Classical equations are still generally useful in that they can accurately describe the human-scale physical world to a sufficient level of detail.


In this way, science is socially contingent.
Insofar as the social is not fixed, but is subject to the the activity of humans, as classes, and the modes of production with which they exist in a dialectical relationship (I mean dialectical here in a purely descriptive sense), science is necessarily inextricable from the modes of production which bring it in to being, and bares with it a particular class content.

To avoid making this in to a tl;dr post, I'm going to stop here, and let the shitshow begin.


I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Is Science shaped by the societies that birth it? Sure, but that in itself isn't the really interesting part, is it? It's the consequences of that which are of interest.

Does the nature of global capitalism favour specific types of research over others? Certainly, but I would have thought that was obvious.

Even scientists themselves recognise how things such as the profit motive can distort scientific research - in Bad Pharma (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Pharma-companies-mislead-patients/dp/0007350740) the science journalist Ben Goldacre tells of the various tricks and wheezes used by the pharmaceutical industry to make money at the expense of science and health.

[Sea]

VMC, you might want to differentiate between science and the corruption thereof. Science isn't the problem, the problem is the straying away from scientific analysis -- as bourgeois academics often do to avoid drawing conclusions that conflict with their economic and political establishment. Science is not the problem. Quite the opposite. Science is the solution, the deviation from scientific principle (while still labeling it as science) is the problem. You also seem to have a rather strange idea of what science means in relation to society.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

First - thanks!
I think this is an excellent place for jumping off and expanding.


If the "stranglehold" of science among the radical left is a problem (how? You don't elaborate) then what do you propose instead? Mysticism?

See, it's this mindset, oriented toward a single way-of-knowing that is particularly the problem. It's not that "science" is necessarily any more abominable than any particular "mysticism" (a bizarre lumping together of diverse beliefs if ever there was one), but its claim to exclusive and objective knowledge that is objectionable.


I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Is Science shaped by the societies that birth it? Sure, but that in itself isn't the really interesting part, is it? It's the consequences of that which are of interest.

Quite true! We might look, for example, to endemic condescending attitudes on the left toward indigenous peoples' traditions as one disturbing consequence. We might consider the uncritical fetishization of "technology" (understanding this to mean high technology, dependent on massively destructive international industrial infrastructure) as another. We might look to the uncritical adoption of liberal-bourgeois quantitative methods of assessing value (life span). They're myriad.


Does the nature of global capitalism favour specific types of research over others? Certainly, but I would have thought that was obvious.

Even scientists themselves recognise how things such as the profit motive can distort scientific research - in Bad Pharma (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Pharma-companies-mislead-patients/dp/0007350740) the science journalist Ben Goldacre tells of the various tricks and wheezes used by the pharmaceutical industry to make money at the expense of science and health.

So, an idealized science-that-does-not-yet-exist (after the destruction of the profit motive) is the answer to the actually-existing science of Bad Pharma? I don't disagree entirely, but would you accept the same claim for, say, Catholicism? Sure, the Pope is an evil fuck - but even a great many Catholics say so! Surely, another Catholicism is possible!

[Thirsty Crow]

See, it's this mindset, oriented toward a single way-of-knowing that is particularly the problem. It's not that "science" is necessarily any more abominable than any particular "mysticism" (a bizarre lumping together of diverse beliefs if ever there was one), but its claim to exclusive and objective knowledge that is objectionable.

You'll have to be more clear here if you wish other users to take up your criticism of the "epistemological stranglehold" seriously. What are other, non-scientific ways of knowing which are reliable and useful (this needs to be answered for the claim of science's "claim to exclusive and objective knowledge that is objectionable" to make any kind of sense; alongside the clarification of what you mean by "objective knowledge").

That's apart from the apparent fact that beliefs do not constitute, and cannot, any kind of a practice of gaining knowledge. Or do they, in your opinion (again, what kind of belief?)?

[The Jay]

I think that what you are doing here is labeling the consensus of the general community of scientists as Science and that this consensus is to be taken literally and on faith by the rest of society. That is not the case. If you took the time to learn the theories and do the accompanying experiments - or even make your own experiments - you would, if subjected to peer review, come to the same conclusions as the current scientific community.

That is the point of the scientific method which you called science. The only barrier to you coming up with the same conclusions as professional scientists is practice, creativity, and/or luck.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

First - thanks!
I think this is an excellent place for jumping off and expanding.

See, it's this mindset, oriented toward a single way-of-knowing that is particularly the problem. It's not that "science" is necessarily any more abominable than any particular "mysticism" (a bizarre lumping together of diverse beliefs if ever there was one), but its claim to exclusive and objective knowledge that is objectionable.

In what way is it "exclusive"? Anyone can use scientific methods no matter what their personal beliefs. The objectivity comes from the assumption (which has so far proven to be valid) that there is a reality outside of oneself that is consistent and on some level understandable by human beings. Gravity on Earth accelerates at 9.8 metres per second squared, and anyone who can be bothered to do the experiments will reach a similar conclusion.


Quite true! We might look, for example, to endemic condescending attitudes on the left toward indigenous peoples' traditions as one disturbing consequence. We might consider the uncritical fetishization of "technology" (understanding this to mean high technology, dependent on massively destructive international industrial infrastructure) as another. We might look to the uncritical adoption of liberal-bourgeois quantitative methods of assessing value (life span). They're myriad.

One's position regarding indigenous peoples' traditions derives from more than science or Science. One's ideas about politics and culture are also important. It's entirely possible to reject science in all forms, and still have a condescending attitude to indigenous people and their traditions.

"Fetishisation of technology" might sound impressive, but what does this actually amount to? As far as I can tell, the sort who bandy such words about usually seem to be referring to instances where technological solutions ignore or take primacy over social, economic, cultural etc. solutions. I don't think that's a malaise common to the radical left. Even as an unrepentant technophile I recognise that realising the full potential of human artifice will require a major socio-economic reorganisation of society.

As for life span, while I think it's obvious that a longer life by itself is an insufficient metric for determining quality of life, it's also kind of hard to make any improvements to quality of life if there is no life to improve in the first place. One can't do much to improve life for the over-50s if people are dying in their 40s.


So, an idealized science-that-does-not-yet-exist (after the destruction of the profit motive) is the answer to the actually-existing science of Bad Pharma?

It seems to me that the ultimate answer is to eliminate the socio-economic system which motivates via profit, but in the meantime I would suggest using the tools of scientific investigation to uncover fraud and deception, and/or supporting scientists who engage in that kind of work, rather than sneering at them.


I don't disagree entirely, but would you accept the same claim for, say, Catholicism? Sure, the Pope is an evil fuck - but even a great many Catholics say so! Surely, another Catholicism is possible!

I don't think this analogy works. The Church is a centralised religious institution with a specific doctrine, whereas science in any form is highly decentralised (who's the Pope of science?), and if done honestly gives the same results no matter what one's spiritual position.

[Rafiq]

science is necessarily inextricable from the modes of production which bring it in to being, and bares with it a particular class content.

To avoid making this in to a tl;dr post, I'm going to stop here, and let the shitshow begin.


Ah, I see. This discussion, of which I plan on partaking in in the near future more often, is of great importance. In your post, you pre-suppose that science has an ideological character, i.e. a class nature. Many things, then, require us to clear what could become a pointless game of semantics. For one, we have to understand the means in which class exert their interests (unconsciously) through the superstructure. As far as the thought-superstructure goes, class nature, or the essence of a class nature can only express itself through ideology, and through this it pervades the superstructure. With this being said, there cannot be a doubt that there are scientific methods which possess a class character. But as far as science in itself goes, i.e. As far as a "proletarian" science goes, there is no such of a thing. Of course I reject teleology, utilitarianism and so on, however, there does exist a universal, objectively existent historical phenomena in which humans have attempted to properly understand the material world around them, now, the fact that this is a relatively new phenomena is incapable of allowing anyone to dismiss this. Now, the method of attempting to do so is not intrinsically possessive of a class nature, but as Engels would say, the form in which this method is expressed, or the rhetorical nature as I would say, bears ideological tendencies. So, one would ask, what is the essence of this, then? An eternal struggle for knowledge in different according modes of production. The point I am trying to get at is although there is most definitely ideological rhetoric surrounding the scientific method at times, science itself has no real class nature, or, I should say, proletarian science does not exist. Bourgeois science does indeed exist, but this is not to be opposed by Marxists because it is simply 'bourgeois' but because it is ideological, and the sciences and ideology are diametrically opposed as phenomena. But then, are we even to call the bourgeois sciences, science? We should not forget it was Lenin who attacked Plekhanov, and other 'Marxists' for reducing Historical Materialism to a subjective analysis of human history, i.e. "history from the point of view of the proletariat", and rightfully so. Objective reality, objective human history does exist and thus, it should be, as Marxists, our duty to analyse and understand it as such, rather than adhering to "proletarian sciences" or what have you. I can not say much for the average, uneducated worker, but as Marxists we should strive to divorce ourselves from all ideology as far as understanding objective reality goes. Is this possible? At least in regards to the sciences, it is.

Note I may later contradict myself or change my position on this in coming weeks, or months. I still do believe there is a genuine deadlock regarding the sciences, ideology and so on but soon enough I anticipate on solving it once and for all. If anyone else is interested in more discussion regarding their relation, feel free to check out my thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/science-ideology-morality-t176983/index.html?t=176983

[Kenco Smooth]

See, it's this mindset, oriented toward a single way-of-knowing that is particularly the problem. It's not that "science" is necessarily any more abominable than any particular "mysticism" (a bizarre lumping together of diverse beliefs if ever there was one), but its claim to exclusive and objective knowledge that is objectionable.


No-one has ever proposed that the only way of knowing anything is through the scientific method (I didn't consult scientific literature before deciding whether or not to make this post for example). Claims against 'scientism' almost always lie on this strawman. But as a method of understanding the rules by which the world functions it's been the only option for a long time now. When it comes to these areas would you propose anything other than science as being remotely capable of providing adequate answers?



Quite true! We might look, for example, to endemic condescending attitudes on the left toward indigenous peoples' traditions as one disturbing consequence. We might consider the uncritical fetishization of "technology" (understanding this to mean high technology, dependent on massively destructive international industrial infrastructure) as another. We might look to the uncritical adoption of liberal-bourgeois quantitative methods of assessing value (life span). They're myriad.

These are all value judgements and as of such can in now way be laid at the door of science. An essential component of these positions is accepting the moral presuppositions they lie on. Trying to criticise science as an institute and/or method because disagreeable value judgements are predicated on it is exactly the tactic of those who blame Darwinian theory for the holocaust.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

In what way is it "exclusive"? Anyone can use scientific methods no matter what their personal beliefs.

See, it's premises like this that are precisely the problem. The thing is, not "anybody" can employ scientific method, since scientific method is bound up in the broader continuity of science. To read science into other contexts, and call "scientific method" the practices of people who are outside science as a hegemonic discourse is the height of cultural chauvinism.


The objectivity comes from the assumption (which has so far proven to be valid) that there is a reality outside of oneself that is consistent and on some level understandable by human beings.

On the contrary, that reality is anything but "consistent" - its consistency is constituted by the questions we ask, and the forms of life that inform the answers and their interpretations.


Gravity on Earth accelerates at 9.8 metres per second squared, and anyone who can be bothered to do the experiments will reach a similar conclusion.

Of course, the abstract "anyone" who can conduct those experiments, in those terms, and come up with those answers, is not "anyone" at all.


"Fetishisation of technology" might sound impressive, but what does this actually amount to? As far as I can tell, the sort who bandy such words about usually seem to be referring to instances where technological solutions ignore or take primacy over social, economic, cultural etc. solutions.

Technological (amusingly, from "a discourse or treatise" prior to its specific industrial/mechanical, and later "high tech" implications) solutions are inseparable from "social, economic, cultural, etc. solutions" - to try to talk about any one in isolation is necessarily to miss the point. You know, not to appeal to expertise, but I thought we'd probably be in agreement with Karl on that one - the whole "means of production" schtick, y'know?


I don't think this analogy works. The Church is a centralised religious institution with a specific doctrine, whereas science in any form is highly decentralised (who's the Pope of science?), and if done honestly gives the same results no matter what one's spiritual position.

If done honestly? So, maybe science isn't so independent of "one's spiritual position" after all? I kid, but not entirely.

In any case, the decentralization of science hardly constitutes an egalitarian striving in real practice - it's decentralized like capital. The institutions of science - the academy, the labs, and so on - are every bit as capable of repression and control as the Vatican if not more so.


Blah, blah, but probably the most interesting contribution so far

^Thanks for actually engaging with this on a level that isn't entirely superficial.


No-one has ever proposed that the only way of knowing anything is through the scientific method

But as a method of understanding the rules by which the world functions it's been the only option for a long time now.

Uh-huh.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

See, it's premises like this that are precisely the problem. The thing is, not "anybody" can employ scientific method, since scientific method is bound up in the broader continuity of science. To read science into other contexts, and call "scientific method" the practices of people who are outside science as a hegemonic discourse is the height of cultural chauvinism.

Actually I'd say it's the height of historical and cultural chauvinism to limit science to post-Enlightenment Europeans.


On the contrary, that reality is anything but "consistent" - its consistency is constituted by the questions we ask, and the forms of life that inform the answers and their interpretations.

The point is that no matter who is asking those questions, the answers are the same. Or are you seriously trying to argue that radiation (a subject relevant even to pre-industrial peoples - sunburn being an example) is merely a point of view?


Of course, the abstract "anyone" who can conduct those experiments, in those terms, and come up with those answers, is not "anyone" at all.

Nonsense. You're on the surface of the Earth. There's no reason why you can't at least start investigating the phenomenon of gravity for yourself.


Technological (amusingly, from "a discourse or treatise" prior to its specific industrial/mechanical, and later "high tech" implications) solutions are inseparable from "social, economic, cultural, etc. solutions" - to try to talk about any one in isolation is necessarily to miss the point. You know, not to appeal to expertise, but I thought we'd probably be in agreement with Karl on that one - the whole "means of production" schtick, y'know?

Nothing I've said implies that technological solutions should be considered seperately from other kinds of solutions - technological fetishism does this of course, but as I said I don't think that's a problem for the left.


If done honestly? So, maybe science isn't so independent of "one's spiritual position" after all? I kid, but not entirely.

Well, you'll have to take that up with those religious scientists who see no conflict between their work and their faith. Even though I don't think science and faith are compatible, that doesn't mean that religious scientists are necessarily being dishonest when they say they don't see an incompatibility.


In any case, the decentralization of science hardly constitutes an egalitarian striving in real practice - it's decentralized like capital. The institutions of science - the academy, the labs, and so on - are every bit as capable of repression and control as the Vatican if not more so.

I don't believe that. What's your evidence?

[Kenco Smooth]

Uh-huh.

Because quantitatively understanding the basic processes of nature is the only form of knowledge out there right? Besides you dodged the question, for this form of knowledge what else could you possibly propose?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Because quantitatively understanding the basic processes of nature is the only form of knowledge out there right? Besides you dodged the question, for this form of knowledge what else could you possibly propose?

For the form of scientific knowledge, I couldn't possibly propose another form of knowledge. Unfortunately, this is like asking, "For knowledge of salvation through our lord Jesus Christ, what possible mode of understanding could we possibly propose other than Christianity?" It's tautological, and misses the point.

[black magick hustla]

well, as one of the few scientists in this board i'll chip in.

i mostly agree with kuhn's take on science as more of a community/form of life as opposed to some sort of methodology. i.e. science is also historicized and it's pretty evident when looking at the history of science how there it's pretty much an activity of men, and not some strange notion that some scientists have of tapping some platonic forms. it's a community with its own rules, language, symbols, hierarchy, and rituals.

because science is affected by it's wider context, in revolutionary times, like every other form of life, it becomes factionalized. some fractions of science become revolutionary, other's protect reaction. case in point, early 20th century revolutionaries all admired science - even nihilists and illegalists.

however, there is something peculiar and special about science that simply makes it silly to equate it to other forms of life when talking about the production of knowledge. the value of science is it's predictive power, you can use scientific knowledge to build computers and rockets and trace the movement of the stars and divine about the ultimate fate of the universe. religious forms of knowledge production are mostly explanatory, not predictive. at the end of the day, in marxist speak, it seems that science is better at producing use-values than other life forms.

it just seems simply to precious to just say science is equivalent to religion/music/philosophy when pertaining knowledge production. it's just edgy posturing by humanities grad students trying to convince the government to give them money by claiming they are about as useful in value production as science.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Very interesting. My only real point of disagreement is that there have been predictive, "scientific" elements in cultures that have existed outside of science. As such, I'd maintain that generalizations are the best that can be drawn in some senses, except that it is science specifically, that has carried out the broadest scope of "scientific" prediction.
Anyway, I appreciate the introduction of new terms, and feel like I should probably read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[John]

So, an idealized science-that-does-not-yet-exist (after the destruction of the profit motive) is the answer to the actually-existing science of Bad Pharma? I don't disagree entirely, but would you accept the same claim for, say, Catholicism? Sure, the Pope is an evil fuck - but even a great many Catholics say so! Surely, another Catholicism is possible!
There are some thigs we know, like gravity makes teh apple fall from the tree but, what the heck is gravity and or why is it so weak compared to other forces? Enter string theory/different dimensions etc and so on. Ya know? There's limits to our "science" but what we've come up with thus far has had some very practical implications as the base of technological innovations but I think "science" can cross that line into subjectivity but at the core of things we know nothing yet some people think we'll have the universe figured out in a few decades. I say nay. I say we're infants never to grow up. Science, in that framework, so to speak, is ever evolving and perhaps never 100% correct.

[MarxSchmarx]

Purely deductive mathematics provides an alternative way of knowing to science. The statements of mathematics (and perhaps language) are true irrespective of how the external world operates. In fact this is more or less how a lot of greek philosophers thought the world could be known, and some went so far as to say that empirical study could be dispensed with altogether.

By contrast, science is primarily inductive, and it comes about through the interplay between deductive reasoning and empirical study. So in this sense what VMC says is correct, that science's claims to be the exclusive source of knowledge are not credible, and mathematics provides a counter-example to those claiming otherwise.

As far as examples of technophilia go, I think there is some merit to this critique that it is also a reflection of capitalist practice. A case in point is agriculture. Enormous effort gets invested in preventing crop loss to insects for things like maize and wheat. The pest problems however are often a reflection of industrialized agriculture, and scientific effort is predicated on the assumption of maximizing the yield for industrialized agriculture. Polyculture and alternative modes of agricultural organization are ignored while silver bullets are sought for a golden pesticide. I agree with noxion that this isn't a critique of science per se, but it is a recognition that the fact that the vast majority of pest scientists work on combating pests affecting major growers using certain, expensive techniques rather than developing alternative agricultural systems (which could be done with much more technologically primitive approaches) reflects capitalist production.

Another example is public health. Enormous money goes into finding the miracle cancer drug rather than, say, preventative care. Technology is seen as the cure all, when simply making primary medical care more accessible would also reduce mortality comparable to levels that could be expected of any cancer drug in the next decade.

None of this is of course new, but I think it's important to understand that certain scientific practice (pesticide chemistry and molecular pharmacology) are systematically prioritized over others (mixed land use and preventative medicine) by the capitalist economic system, and this leads to placing unwarranted laurels on solutions that rely heavily on technological breakthroughs rather than on alternative social practices to solve problems. I think calling this a "fetishization of technology" is pretty fair.

Also as to scientific papacy:


I don't think this analogy works. The Church is a centralised religious institution with a specific doctrine, whereas science in any form is highly decentralised (who's the Pope of science?), and if done honestly gives the same results no matter what one's spiritual position.



In any case, the decentralization of science hardly constitutes an egalitarian striving in real practice - it's decentralized like capital. The institutions of science - the academy, the labs, and so on - are every bit as capable of repression and control as the Vatican if not more so.




I don't believe that. What's your evidence?


There's a kernel of truth to what VMC says. The fact is, to advance modern science in any serious way requires enormous capital investment - so much so that in most countries, the majority of new science is done through investment by highly centralized state science agencies and the remainder by very large corporations (and much less of that today) or their derived foundations like the Gates Foundation. There is little denying that what gets funded in science is what largely serves the interests of capitalist society. I think it is not quite as centralized as the catholic church, a better analogy is probably the mainstream protestant churches with their patchwork of authorities but nevertheless deeply institutionalized and conventional outlook. There are exceptions here and there, but the days when a gentleman naturalist could make a major contribution sitting around his house are largely behind us.

I think they might, just might, come back as serious computing power once again becomes available, but experimental science (in the traditional sense) is largely restricted to what is funded by the capitalists and their states.



well, as one of the few scientists in this board i'll chip in.

i mostly agree with kuhn's take on science as more of a community/form of life as opposed to some sort of methodology. i.e. science is also historicized and it's pretty evident when looking at the history of science how there it's pretty much an activity of men, and not some strange notion that some scientists have of tapping some platonic forms. it's a community with its own rules, language, symbols, hierarchy, and rituals.

because science is affected by it's wider context, in revolutionary times, like every other form of life, it becomes factionalized. some fractions of science become revolutionary, other's protect reaction. case in point, early 20th century revolutionaries all admired science - even nihilists and illegalists.

however, there is something peculiar and special about science that simply makes it silly to equate it to other forms of life when talking about the production of knowledge. the value of science is it's predictive power, you can use scientific knowledge to build computers and rockets and trace the movement of the stars and divine about the ultimate fate of the universe. religious forms of knowledge production are mostly explanatory, not predictive. at the end of the day, in marxist speak, it seems that science is better at producing use-values than other life forms.

it just seems simply to precious to just say science is equivalent to religion/music/philosophy when pertaining knowledge production. it's just edgy posturing by humanities grad students trying to convince the government to give them money by claiming they are about as useful in value production as science.

I hasten to add that "prediction" remains outside the domain of many scientists, particularly mathematical modelers. For instance, weather modeling is still quite limited in its scope, and this inability is even more pronounced in models of things like earth quake incidences or the spread of infectious diseases. There have been major strides in these areas, but the prevailing attitude in these fields is still one of seeing scientific practice as being explanatory and as formalizing rigorous lines of thought, rather than as claiming to predict what will happen x days down the line. This is why simple, rather than accurate, models are often favored by the community. Prediction is a goal which is possible in principle, but remains quite outside what is practical that a lot of practitioners have effectively abandoned it. In this sense it really does resemble the philosophy I've encountered, which often sees its goal as articulating and formalizing ideas.

Of course the situation is a bit different in physics, but I think the reality is that outside perhaps chemistry most scientific fields have recognized that prediction , at least at the precision physics has, is not a realistic goal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

None of this is of course new, but I think it's important to understand that certain scientific practice (pesticide chemistry and molecular pharmacology) are systematically prioritized over others (mixed land use and preventative medicine) by the capitalist economic system, and this leads to placing unwarranted laurels on solutions that rely heavily on technological breakthroughs rather than on alternative social practices to solve problems. I think calling this a "fetishization of technology" is pretty fair.

Well, I don't think it has to be an either/or choice. For example, genetic engineering could be used to enhance polyculture by producing strains of crop that are more resistant to pests and poor soil conditions, thus reducing usage of pesticides and fertilisers.

[MarxSchmarx]

None of this is of course new, but I think it's important to understand that certain scientific practice (pesticide chemistry and molecular pharmacology) are systematically prioritized over others (mixed land use and preventative medicine) by the capitalist economic system, and this leads to placing unwarranted laurels on solutions that rely heavily on technological breakthroughs rather than on alternative social practices to solve problems. I think calling this a "fetishization of technology" is pretty fair. Well, I don't think it has to be an either/or choice. For example, genetic engineering could be used to enhance polyculture by producing strains of crop that are more resistant to pests and poor soil conditions, thus reducing usage of pesticides and fertilisers.

The things is, under capitalism, it often is. The state/agribusiness/etc has only so much to invest in one product or the other. This by itself places severe constraints on the scientific process. To the extent that such constraints are believed to exist, the systems of reward/costs under capitalism ensure that the effort goes to find a silver bullet, even if such efforts might not be optimally targeted. That is part of the reason why places like Bell Labs get shut down, and that pharmaceuticals/pesticide/GMO companies treat their R&D as combinatorial problems.

I suspect the constraints will be loosened but not entirely removed in a post-capitalist society. There will be more understanding of a 'diminishing returns' of ever higher investment in a given technology. It's hard to say for certain, of course, but I think the fact that we know so much more about, e.g., pesticide resistance than we do about how permacultures function is testament to the trajectory science has taken under capitalism and belies its assertion of social independence.

[black magick hustla]

but I think the reality is that outside perhaps chemistry most scientific fields have recognized that prediction , at least at the precision physics has, is not a realistic goal.
__________________
not true. most scientific fields have very practical branches that are related to the construction of technology or the creation of techniques, and thus, they are geared towards prediction. for example biology is used for medicine, bioengineering, breeding, agriculture etc. in fact, it's the practical branches (the prediction based) that are the largest because they accrete government money and aid capital accumulation better. theory, which is important, and where some of it is highly speculative, is actually a smaller field.

even physical phenomena can't be emulated to the most precise degree because that requires immense computational power - i.e. fluid dynamics. that doesn't mean that most of physics research isn't geared towards practical applications.

i understand your criticism of science but most of it is aimed towards prediction, not explanatory

[MarxSchmarx]

but I think the reality is that outside perhaps chemistry most scientific fields have recognized that prediction , at least at the precision physics has, is not a realistic goal.not true. most scientific fields have very practical branches that are related to the construction of technology or the creation of techniques, and thus, they are geared towards prediction. for example biology is used for medicine, bioengineering, breeding, agriculture etc. in fact, it's the practical branches (the prediction based) that are the largest because they accrete government money and aid capital accumulation better. theory, which is important, and where some of it is highly speculative, is actually a smaller field.

even physical phenomena can't be emulated to the most precise degree because that requires immense computational power - i.e. fluid dynamics. that doesn't mean that most of physics research isn't geared towards practical applications.

i understand your criticism of science but most of it is aimed towards prediction, not explanatory

To some extent the issue really is one of precision. Of course I agree that in practice, hypotheses are tested and then measurements are taken to asses the accuracy or inaccuracy of such hypotheses. For instance, one could say "If mechanism X causes Z rather than Y, then absent X we should get Y and add X and we should get Z", and, in a meaningful sense this is "prediction". molecular biology, for instance, has succeeded enormously on for decades on the back of this sort of research.

But I think that for traditional science to progress, even in very applied areas, there is an expectation that quantitative predictions should be possible, that X amount of some input produces Y amount of some output.

The point that theory is somewhat exceptional is well taken. But as to the limitations on physics you describe, in a real sense computational limitations are not scientific limitations - that is, in principle it is doable given enormous resources and surmounting it is an engineering, rather than conceptual problem.

The issue I think is that there is an often unstated expectation for precision and utility of predictive modeling in the mode of physics as applied to other sciences is desirable or possible at least in principle. It is this notion that I think is quite problematic, at least in biology especially and to a lesser degree in fields like geology and atmospheric science, not to mention the social sciences. I tend to agree with the view that if we can make broad qualitative predictions in fields like agriculture such as "growing different crops together generates higher yields" that could be tested with very straightforward selection, then further advance in the field typically requires predictions about how X amount of different crops provide Y amount of yield.

But the point I want to emphasize is that this is where theory and modeling begin to run into serious problems, and the expectations of scientific prediction are no longer as robust.

The physicist/mathematician/biologist Robert May goes into this issue in considerable depth in:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14764866

I don't completely buy May's argument, but it illustrates the sort of thinking and attitude towards quantitative prediction that establishment science has, at least in biology.