"WAR on SCIENCE" declared the poster stuck to the street lamp. Yes, I thought, finally. I looked closer. It's a film showing at the Brunswick theatre, a place that I know shows good films and interesting documentaries. So I looked it up. And was sorely disappointed. For this BBC film is yet another in the "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" debate, featuring Richard Dawkins. It's not the war I hoped for. It's a war by pseudo-scientists on pseudo-scientists.
But the war on science needs to happen. Not by intelligent designers, or other fundamentalist groups with horrific political agendas. It needs to be a war of liberation.
The past few centuries have seen the increase in the power of science. It has, in many ways, been a fantastic force in the liberation from oppressive religious power structures, and through science many good things have been accomplished. Because of this, more and more people have knelt before its authority, hoping that it will explain all the mysteries of the cosmos better than theism did. And it does. But it's become an idol, and it's been subverted by exploitative capitalism.
People trust science. People trust scientists. People trust those who speak for scientists, in language that they can understand. People trust far too much.
The movie The Future of Food impressed on me how bad this has gotten. The movie shows how rich, heartless, US corporations have turn America into a genetically modified wasteland, for the sole purpose of profit. GM crops are no better for the consumer, and don't solve the worlds food shortage. They are simply there to protect profits.
Intellectual property is the same way. Those companies are trying to patent the worlds seeds, which word give them omnipotent control over food production, allowing them to decide who lives and who starves. After hearing from Harpers that "The United States Department of Agriculture gave preliminary approval for the large-scale cultivation in Kansas of a strain of genetically modified rice that contains human genes," (Findings, May 2007) it seems that those corporations (along with many other medical corporations) are now in the business of patenting human genes, and so it doesn't seem far off that a person born is already corporately owned. Will we then need to pay dues to live? To work as slaves?
And talking of medical, I just read another Harpers article, Manufacturing Depression: A journey into the economy of melancholy, which is written by a therapist/writer who agrees to undergo drug testing for depression. The article is superbly written and shows the blatant lies the drug corporations use. Towards the end of the article he writes, "I am already deflated when I arrive for my last interview. Of course, there's no place in the HAM-D to express this, to talk about the immeasurable loss that I think we all suffer as science turns to scientism, as bright and ambitious people devote their lives to erasing selfhood in order to cure it of its discontents." "[The doctor's] chippy now, like she's trying to convince me that I ought to take my improvement and go home happy, another satisfied customer. And really, it doesn't matter. Because the point here is not to teach me anything about myself, or for them to learn anything from me. It's not even to prove whether or not omega-3s work. It's to strengthen the idea that this is what we are: machines fueled by neurotransmitters at the mercy of our own renegade molecules."
Similar things can be said in the world of electronics (where corporations receive their yearly taxes as we 'upgrade'), in munitions, and in any other place where science can be used to exploit. Science is no longer that wonderful thing we worship as science. Science is corporate-controlled ideology, designed to entrap and exploit. We need to lose faith in science, and go to war against its priests.
who are the priests of science?
ReplyDeleteSurely this is just another "War on Abstract Noun", just as vague and insubstantial as existing ones on Science and Drugs.
ReplyDeleteShall we have a war on History and Up next?
Mind you we do have to be safe from all that lethal heavy electrity falling out of wires and crushing people to eight inches...
ReplyDeleteDamn Science. People say it couldn't happen, but Christ it keeps me up at night...
Obviously in my first post Science=Terror.
ReplyDeleteGrr blogspot
Priests would be the drug-researchers and seed-modifiers, or at least their advertising departments. I guess.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is just another "War on Oppressive Abstract Noun"? There's a lot that's oppressive.
Science is wonderful in clearing away theism, in undermining the deus ex machina. I'm not arguing against some of it. I'm arguing against it's abuse, and so I'm arguing that we're a lot more careful about trusting it.
Military 'intelligence' is another thing based on science that has proven to be a lie. And cars are pretty devastating, another area of bad science.
But maybe this needs to come from someone who doesn't claim to have a religion first? Maybe a Christian-Pagan-Agnostic is too close to being a fundie-Christian to be trusted, just as no one trusted the first Intelligent Design guy wasn't really a fundie in disguise (which he turned out to be).
Oh well.
So, like the other wars on abstract nouns (terror, drugs) where were you planning to find Science to take it down?
ReplyDeleteIn a cupboard? At number 56? Fly up to its Super Science Airship and give it a kick in the nuts, for being such a mean old Science?
At its core science is nothing more than natural philosophy ie what you’re doing on this board, just applied to the natural world. Fundamentally no different from any other art or humanity, save the specifics of its scope (as with anything). I can't really see that identifying it up as an independent, distinct phenomenon with inherent qualities beyond those of its participants makes sense.
If the crux of the notion involves calling an advertising rep a scientist then I remain somewhat sceptical. That’s surely just another case of humans being manipulated, duped and/or mistaken: a phenomenon pretty continuous through human history, and not one needing an independent cause.
Theseus’s Dad seeing his kid's Black flag, and hurtling himself into the sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegeus)
was, essentially, no different to the USA's flawed intelligence, but can hardly be put down "Bad Science".
Just a case of individuals making foolish decisions, because they were told something wrong, or just didn’t think things through. Whether it was through mistake, deception or villainy that situation was in the offing from the moment we crawled out of the protozoic slime.
Does this mean when offered a car ride now you will gallantly decline, and stride of defiantly into the sunset?
The excessive centrality of science in this western civilization gives so little room to other initiatives, esp those coming from myth/mysticism and our body. It seems like a symbol of what we human being could have power over. Just like Jesus as a symbol, as Ivone Gebara puts it, is "in a certain sense greater than Jesus of Nazareth as an individual, because in him millions and millions of persons are encompassed". Science as symbol, so as Jesus as symbol, is manipulated within our globalized world. The power of Science/Jesus triumphs over every other power, is a power that who can "find a solution to all problems".(For the above quotes, see Gebara's "Eco-feminism: an Ethics of Life")
ReplyDeleteThis over power of science leads us to forgotten of body (as subject).Feeling is a way of knowing. Sometime we gotta believe in the wisdom of our bodies. Listening to our bodies and the Sacred Body (Gebara's term of describing universe & the oneness of all living things), we could find healing and new insight of 'health'. I believe there's healing from within.
Hm... "war" on science sounds too patriarch, how about bring forth the insights of science that "power with/in" body instead of "power over" body? (but then maybe we don't want to call it "science" anymore. After all, this word has so many baggages...)
kenix
Tom, I think you missed the point. I don't intend to pick up a gun and start shooting science. I won't even go around shooting scientists. I intend really to establish more distrust in people so they think for themselves and are less likely to be duped. I think people still have too much faith in what the scientists say. And it's also seen as a way, as per Dawkins, to attack the religious fundamentalists that people don't like, but people need to see that they are advancing fundamentalist scientism (blind faith in science) more often than not.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting K. Science has, in many ways, got us into the mess of climate change, and doing more of the same (more science) will not resolve the situation but will only continue to contribute to it and so make it worse. It's that kind of faith in science that I distrust and hope others lose faith in. It's not that science is all bad and we should desert it, just as not everything about religion is bad, it's that we should be a lot more careful than we are being about how much we trust science, and who we vest authority in.
In some ways, I'm hoping for an idealogical change, so that people don't see disease/death as problems to be fixed, and don't see bodies as inconvenient things that get in the way of minds, and don't see nature as other from us so we can exploit it and exercise power over it. Instead, we need to embrace the wonder of death, even when it's painful, celebrate our bodies and take joy in them, know we are nature and engage it in positive ways. Maybe this helps clarify a little?
I like a lot of that TiK!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am still not entirely happy with "Science" as an independant quantity, distinct from others.
Theism, and approaches to it were highly "scientific" in their time (Decartes meditations/Augustine/Aquinas) and Deism was the very zeigteist of the the Scientific enlightenment. Similarly I think notions embracing feeling, emotion and body could be seen as scientific. I am reading a book just now called "Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modern Identity", which is highly "scientific" in approach, but deals with all of these things in a positive manner.
I do like the notion of "science as a symbol" though, and the "science within", although TiK is spot on about the word "science" carrying lots of inappropriate baggage.
It has connotations that are not only vague, but also often innacurate (as I was trying to say above)
With regard to people instantly dismissing alternate "initiatives" instantly when they seem "unscientific" this is unquestionably true, and, I would agree, a Bad Thing.
However it is pretty par for the course given humanities tradititional (and considerable) antipathy to ideas outside the mainstream. Thats been about since long before anyone hammered wood into a vaguely cross-ish shape. The only reliable counter seems to be to make ones own idea mainstream.
I have an anecdote to give you an idea of what you're up against in this: I recently sat down to an expensive, but deservedly so, Italian meal with two friends. During it a conversation arose where we concluded that without modern medicine all three of us, and a number of our siblings would not have lived to savor either delicious flavour's, or the extravagant markup of our pasta.
A lot of people owe a lot to "Science".
Damn, cross posted. This may be repeating myself. I will try and clarify myself briefly.
ReplyDeleteNo, I got your point, I don't think you got mine. I wasnt suggesting you intended violence with the facetiousness, I was critquing your suggestion that "Scientists" are some clearly identifiable body. You were attacking "Science" as an independant definable entity,that can somehow "do" things, whilst providing no definition.
I would contend no such definition exists. In the course of this discussion one could happily contend both you and I are acting as scientists, albeit in a relatively minor fashion. and I would agree.
Interesting, just noticed something that piqued my interest:
ReplyDeleteIf death/disease are not be avoided, then how come climate change is?
Sorry for not posting in a few days, I went to a LG Con in Chicago for the wkend. :)
ReplyDeleteI probably did identify 'science' too sweepingly. What I'm trying to do is inspire distrust about science from those who are around me (from those who read my blog). Too much is said in the name of science, and the name of science is too easily manipulating people in our civilisation, because people have learnt to trust science too much. That trust is now being abused, and many are failing to realise it. I don't want us to start attacking scientists, I want us to critically listen to them, and force them to earn our trust, rather than start by trusting them.
Like Žižek says in his movie, if there's a meteorite headed to earth, then you need science to stop it (rather than philosophy or something else). Science is very often very good, but science is also being heavily abused by those who wish to make money off it and (worse) by those who wish to secure that science will guarantee money making (by patenting, copyright, manufacturing consent, etc.).
As for your last piece, I think that'll have to be a future post. I will have to think about it carefully. Coming soon...
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteMy question is about this passage:
[Science] has, in many ways, been a fantastic force in the liberation from oppressive religious power structures, and through science many good things have been accomplished. Because of this, more and more people have knelt before its authority, hoping that it will explain all the mysteries of the cosmos better than theism did. And it does.
First, how has science "been a fantastic force in the liberation from oppressive religious power structures"? Sure, science has been a force that has brought into question the literal interpretation of Creation, but I don't see this as oppressive. Or is it? If so, how?
And second, how does science "explain all the mysteries of the cosmos better than theism did"? Doesn't science just look at the mysteries from a different perspective?
I was just re-reading Don Juan and came across a passage that put me in mind of this post (unfortuneately the typing space slightly breaks up the lines:
ReplyDeleteHe thought about himself, and the whole earth
Of man the wonderful, and of the stars,
And how the deuce they ever could have birth;
And then he thought of earthquakes, and of wars,
How many miles the moon might have in girth,
Of air-balloons, and of the many bars
To perfect knowledge of the boundless skies; --
And then he thought of Donna Julia's eyes.
Chris:
ReplyDelete1. I was more thinking of the Galileo-type incidents (earth is flat, earth at centre), etc. I think there's grounds to suggest that science was such a big factor in Europe because it was seen as an alternative/rival to the RC Church, which abused its power. The Reformation was one thing, but people realised it didn't go far enough, and so moved away from Sola Scriptura and towards more of a Sola Experienca. Oh, and I guess 'literal' 144hr creation is so anthropocentric that it is easy to make it oppressive to the non-human world.
2. Sure, it's a different perspective. But now, I can put a lot more down to the science I know, rather than having to believe "God did it" or "demons did it." It strikes me that theism and demonology take away agency and responsibility from people in an unhealthy way. And I'm coming to think more and more that Jesus himself tried to show that God appears thru (human) action, not thru the supernatural (think all the lines about "I and the Father are one").
Tom, thanks for the poem. Don Juan is on my reading list...
unrelated-but hope to see you out for GCF study group tomorrow at 6:30!
ReplyDeleteRemember the old saying: “Science can tell us how to make an atomic bomb, but not whether we ought to.”
ReplyDeleteThe problem with worshiping (or attacking) “science” as an absolute is that science only describes process, not meaning. There is nothing wrong with understanding a process, but the decision as to what to do with that process is outside the realm of science. It’s not science that is the problem, it’s the choices that people make with the knowledge (scientia) that they gain. So, ultimately, we’re discussing the sinfulness of humanity. Is “sin” a useful term? Does it have any objective meaning? If so, what constitutes a sinful action by people, and what constitutes merely a predictable (however unpleasant) activity based on biological imperatives?
I think science taken like that is a myth, upholding the goodness (and objectivity) of science. But in the world today, the processes being researched are "How do we make more money off this simple but patented drug," and "How do we modify this gene so that we can patent it and so seize things into our ownership (whether that be seeds to people's lives)." Science is not apolitical, it is hugely political. There is no such thing as objective science, as all science is determined by the questions being asked, and so answer my questions, making it always and inescapably subjective. Those with the money to research science generally have political/power agendas, and those who don't, when their results are published, can be used by those power-hungry people.
ReplyDeleteScience needs to be de-deified, and hanging onto myths like "It's just a process," "It's objective," and "It's outside the realm of ethics (doesn't determine the 'should')" is just going to keep science as a deity/authority over you. People need to realise that science, as it appears in the world today, is abusive and exploitative. Hence my 'war'.
Unfortunately, being religious, those in the mainstream orthodoxy of science will declare me a heretic and so my war will be seen as just another "Religion vs. Science," rather than a struggle for liberation.
No, no, my friend. Your thinking is muddled.
ReplyDeleteIt is not “science” that asks how we can make more money off this drug. It is people. Science that is not objective is not really science any more. It is politics and human nature (not precisely synonymous, but closely related.) The science part asks how to make such a drug. Is it because somebody saw a potential for profit? Or because he saw an interesting unpredicted effect from an experiment aimed at something else? (Most likely the former, but the latter is at least possible.)
It is precisely the attempt to redefine science as something more than it really is that has created the problem you are describing. Science can tell us whether the earth is really warming or not. It can, hypothetically, tell us whether or not humanity is contributing to the problem, what the result of warming is likely to be, and what, if anything, we can do to mitigate the effects. It cannot tell us whether that result is good or bad, and whether mitigation is worthwhile or not. Those value decisions lie in a different realm
I’m not saying anything new. I’m just reminding you that changing the definition of science is not a productive endeavor. It’s fair to rail against what some people may think about science, and the pedestal they may put it upon. But to agree with their redefinition of the word would be unsound. If language itself becomes slippery, then there remains no foundation on which to have a conversation. After that, you are left with nothing but the joy of having an argument (where the two sides are not really talking to each other at all, but to themselves.)
I'm not redefining science, I'm acknowledging that it has been redescribed. And since it has been redescribed (or rather, people have realised that it cannot be objective and have exploited it) people must be wary of it.
ReplyDeleteI notice that you use the hugely political example of global warming as an example of objective science. The very question "Is what we're doing to the world because of our economic system affecting the ecological system" is an extremely political question. That question cannot be asked without politics, and so the question cannot be answered without politics. Science and politics (and economics) are so intermingled that you cannot separate them. To attempt to do so is naive, a simplification of something that is immensely complex. Check out this picture from Harpers.
P.S. Who are you arlen? Just curious.
I wish your blog had an edit function, so I could have corrected these statements:
ReplyDeleteThe science part asks how to make such a drug. Is it because somebody saw a potential for profit? Or because he saw an interesting unpredicted effect from an experiment aimed at something else?
Poor transition. I should have written that the science part asks how to make such a drug. Human nature takes over and asks whether we should make such a drug. Is it pure profit motive, or is the quest to satisfy curiosity? (Or something like that.)
Even in the corrected version, you mention "The science part". What is this "science part"? Isn't it just humans? And therefore subjective? And so the very questions themselves are being asked because of the psycho-social-political-scientific background of the person who is asking. Lacanian psychoanalysis teaches us that nothing comes from nowhere, it is always supported by what has come before, hence the very questions of 'science' are also influenced by every other 'realm' of the person who is asking. Indeed, a lot of post-modern philosophy has also brought to light how questions can only be asked once we know the answer, or at least, once we are acquainted with the language-game that the answer will demand/entail.
ReplyDeleteThe "science" part is the objective part. Science is objective. It's people who are subjective, and who fail to realize the extent to which values and opinions color everything.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right when you say "Science and politics (and economics) are so intermingled that you cannot separate them." However, with a little effort you can still describe them separately and discretely. (Hypothetically, anyway.) After all, the biggest unanswered question with global warming is whether the predicted results are really all that bad, even if the predictions are accurate. That's a value judgment, not a scientific conclusion. I mean, picture New York under twenty feet of water. Got an image of that? Now, try to imagine what the DOWN side might be. . .
:P