| |
|
One:
It seems to me that the one aspect anti-science vibe on this board, and in this thread, is the retro-fitting of the results of applied science to the amorphous ideal of the "scientific method," or capital-S "Science" as a Platonic whole.
I would argue that Science, as a construct, is nothing more than a system for constructing claims about the nature of the world - Why? questions - and deploying that information towards specific objectives...hence the basic/applied definition. Floating within the ideosphere, this is a unmarked process.
(And, yes, the whole miniscule/majescule Text I/Text II distinction does mark me as a Foucalt fan...and the rest suggests that as much as I dislike Plato sometimes, he does come in handy.)
The breakdown of this model occurs as soon as the construct ideal is deployed by an individual, becuase there is an inherent intermingling of the individual "scientists" subjective biases and intents with the "Objective Ideal Science": sometimes this overlap is achieved consciously and cynically, other times entirely by accident. This is "science" as we experience it, day in, day out.
We must thus demand a series of questions about how a piece of "science" is produced, following the line of thought through the structure of the scientific method - the model which self-defines Science, and marks a document as validly "Scientific," to see whether the individual theorist/researcher has
I. Strayed, intentionally or not, from the accepted structure of the scientific method:
[question - hypothesis - design - methodology - data collection - data analysis -conclusion - peer review and repitition]
With this question alone, most of what is presented in public media as "Science" in the objective sense is invalidated, generally by the final four steps. Many labs, especially applied one, do not give out their raw data to peers, instead only passing along the analysis, often meaning that a fellow scientist cannot do the number-crunching and come up with a dislocation between the numbers and their interpretation. One of the most commonly-deployed methods of skewing data in this fashion in to simply not chart the demography of the sampling population...which is how modern wonks on CNN can all simultaneously produce statistics that glaringly support their positions. Peer review and repitition is similarly becoming less frequent...again as a result of the increase in contracted, applied research versus basic...because the scientific project is in fact a "product" the patron corporation uses contractual legal powers [Non-Disclosure agreement, monopoly on intellectual property rights of contracted research] to shelter their product from scruntiny. This is the significance of the FDA, as it was founded.
II. What is the scientist bringing to the table in terms of non-objective ideas - what are his/her conscious and unconscious biases, and how do they influence the very fashion in which she/he asks "Why?"? Furthermore, how is the act of research shaped by the historical moment - the Zeitgeist and Ortgeist?
At every step of the scientific method, ideology and ulterior motive can be injected to bend research, and historically often has. Victorian "race science" was colored by a set of assumptions about How The World Works, in retrospect it is unclear how much proportionally it was an earnest endeavor or a cynical colonial rationale-hunting, but the whole project is inherently tainted. A contrasting example would be the bending of all scientific research paradigms, but especially those dealing with human psychology, around a Marxist-Leninist agenda, in Soviet Russia.
I would argue, though, that the products of this questioning-of questioning do not generate a set of multiple-choice distinctions of right/wrong, good/bad, valid/invalid, but rather a grid. "Science" and the data that results from its practice, remains morally unmarked, but highly marked by its relative worth as data extractable from the context that generated it. There is a point at which data passes over into a realm where objective meaning cannot be distilled beyond the inputted biases.
Two:
My other observation is that scientific research is inherently linked in thread-conversation with the hegemonic, the capitalist, and the authoritarian in a fashion that I would characterize as reflexive. While I'd claim that research is in fact strongly chained to these concepts by economic bonds inherently to the current flow of world capital, I'm not sure I'd agree with the vehemence or agency by which some posters sustain this position. In particular, all of the focus seems to be thrown upon the military-industrial complex, and furthermore, upon the construct of "shadow government," and its passage of money to "The Military" for spending on applied research on weapons technology.
I would contend, to the contrary, that the economic axis that most profoundly influences both the production of scientific data and its presentation to the nonscientific public is at its basis political and corporate. Why? Because the US military is, and always has been, a tool of and manipulated by politicians, and by extension the defense contractors who back the individual politicians.
The conspiratorial image of the Dr. Strangelove-esque general or the Smoking Man are caricatures that conceals greedy individuals in key bureaucratic and policy-making positions lining their own pockets by pushing through paper that demands the purchase of more flimsy products from contracting corporations, or convincing Congressman on key committees to divert funds to further production of unecessary and often poorly-made products. It is the simplest pork-barrel scam, precisely because there is a [perceived] strategic need to update equipment.
Most of the crap the DOD invests in the development of never sees the field because the design specs are defective, verging on useless, the materials used a second-rate [and the difference is pocketed].
Between the Byzantine government bureaucracy and the paperwork labyrinths sustained by defense contractors, the money invested by the US government [in the name of the military] is systematically filtered away from the actual development project. It's the auto-mechanic/house-contractor scam, on a mind-boggling scale.
Hell, half of the stuff that actually goes into the field has proven to experience "unexpected hazards." Jamming M-16s and incorrectly-timed grenades were a huge problem in Vietnam. The US spent 160 million on an APC that caught fire and blew up during its test-drive. Better yet is the cash thrown into the "superweapons" program, such as Teller's nuclear laser or the Stars Wars program.
Anyway, back on track after a necessarily circular path, the problem then is not "Science" aiding the military, but rather the veneer "science" being used as a tool to extract capital from the governmental system, relying upon the self-interests of government officials to achieve this.
Three:
In conclusion for now, I would say that I'd extrapolate an idea mentioned by DPC: the problem isn't Science, but rather the existence of the scientific realm as a region both intellectually and economically closed off. As a specialized realm of thinking, the complexity of scientific language and paradigms can be used quite easily as a schill or a blind to generate the appearance of validity/authenticity/factuality to an otherwise non-Scientific project or claim. [And often has.] One does not, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater. |
|
|
– so scientific progress has been guided by value judgements. But…I don’t know- is it not the scientists themselves who’re drawing the conclusions rather than the sinister NASA or DARPA suits funding the research?