5 ms·

This is the same argument made by Bruno Latour in "We were never Modern", that modernity is marked by the insistence on split between science, politics and phil

This is the same argument made by Bruno Latour in "We were never Modern", that modernity is marked by the insistence on split between science, politics and philosophy - but this split cannot hold up, and we get "hybrids". Science is not a separate domain, but treads in politics and so on. My wife is fond of "The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosopher", which argues the Enlightenment wasn't new, either, it was just pouring religion (the thirst for god) into new cups. Modernity, to me, is a more complex attempt at the same, to find a new source of unambiguous authority, a method by which the world makes sense. Again a futile gesture, but still it takes hold.

user202020 10y ago
> Science is not a separate domain, but treads in politics and so on. How does science tread in politics? I'm actually honestly wondering.
- pklausler 10y ago
  It's not the fault of science that empirical reality tends to have a bias against conservativism (in its current American strain).
  - astazangasta 10y ago
    This is the opposite of what I was saying; you're asserting the existence of an empirical reality that is removed from (superior to) political consideration, I'm insisting this is impossible.
    - pklausler 10y ago
      There's a great reason to trust conclusions based on sound experiments in empirical reality: they tend to work. I do enjoy seeing VLSI microprocessors, optical networks, and sophisticated software being used for discussions on whether or not science works.
      - astazangasta 10y ago
        This is a nonsense argument. I can fling rocks at you with great efficacy without any objective truth grounding my throws.
        pklausler 10y ago
        F=ma
- astazangasta 10y ago
  Scientists make guns, rockets, energy technologies, robots, all of which have political and social consequence. Scientists produce models of human identity and behavior which have the same. See the other thread about machine learning and inequality, e.g.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    Vice versa as well, as funding is always political either directly or indirectly via economy.
  - user202020 10y ago
    I see this point, but I thought you meant that aspects of science mix with political thought. I can definitely see that science has consequences and influences on all kinds of things, including politics. In that case, every field is connected or related to another in some form or fashion.
    - astazangasta 10y ago
      I also mean that, science is deeply fucked by the political prejudices of its practitioners, and not in some trivial "all scientists are Democrats" sort of way. Science, no different than any other form of human knowledge, involves construction of narrative, and is subject to all of the same constraints that narrative prejudice yields. What you study and the methods you use are an obvious place we might find this problem.
      - user202020 10y ago
        I wouldn't say it's as messed up as that. You make it sound as thought scientific institutions suffer from systemic corruption. Yes, narrative is involved, but humans are storytellers. I don't think science is limited or hindered by the way people process information.
    - bloaf 10y ago
      There is a distinction between "science: the game as she is played" and "science: the epistemic method." The former certainly has two-way interactions with politics, but the latter does not.
JackFr 10y ago
> to find a new source of unambiguous authority, a method by which the world makes sense. I think that is one of a very few universals out there, and yet I think very many people are willing to admit it to themselves.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  This is the definition of philosophy.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
For another take on the "split" of modernism, read Francis Schaeffer - either "The God Who Is There" or "Escape From Reason". Schaeffer is a Christian, and his philosophy is explicitly Christian. If that isn't your perspective, you still might benefit from his analysis of why modern thought ended up where it did.

user202020 10y ago

> Science is not a separate domain, but treads in politics and so on. How does science tread in politics? I'm actually honestly wondering.

pklausler 10y ago
It's not the fault of science that empirical reality tends to have a bias against conservativism (in its current American strain).
- astazangasta 10y ago
  This is the opposite of what I was saying; you're asserting the existence of an empirical reality that is removed from (superior to) political consideration, I'm insisting this is impossible.
  - pklausler 10y ago
    There's a great reason to trust conclusions based on sound experiments in empirical reality: they tend to work. I do enjoy seeing VLSI microprocessors, optical networks, and sophisticated software being used for discussions on whether or not science works.
    - astazangasta 10y ago
      This is a nonsense argument. I can fling rocks at you with great efficacy without any objective truth grounding my throws.
      - pklausler 10y ago
        F=ma
astazangasta 10y ago
Scientists make guns, rockets, energy technologies, robots, all of which have political and social consequence. Scientists produce models of human identity and behavior which have the same. See the other thread about machine learning and inequality, e.g.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  Vice versa as well, as funding is always political either directly or indirectly via economy.
- user202020 10y ago
  I see this point, but I thought you meant that aspects of science mix with political thought. I can definitely see that science has consequences and influences on all kinds of things, including politics. In that case, every field is connected or related to another in some form or fashion.
  - astazangasta 10y ago
    I also mean that, science is deeply fucked by the political prejudices of its practitioners, and not in some trivial "all scientists are Democrats" sort of way. Science, no different than any other form of human knowledge, involves construction of narrative, and is subject to all of the same constraints that narrative prejudice yields. What you study and the methods you use are an obvious place we might find this problem.
    - user202020 10y ago
      I wouldn't say it's as messed up as that. You make it sound as thought scientific institutions suffer from systemic corruption. Yes, narrative is involved, but humans are storytellers. I don't think science is limited or hindered by the way people process information.
  - bloaf 10y ago
    There is a distinction between "science: the game as she is played" and "science: the epistemic method." The former certainly has two-way interactions with politics, but the latter does not.

JackFr 10y ago

> to find a new source of unambiguous authority, a method by which the world makes sense. I think that is one of a very few universals out there, and yet I think very many people are willing to admit it to themselves.

AstralStorm 10y ago
This is the definition of philosophy.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

For another take on the "split" of modernism, read Francis Schaeffer - either "The God Who Is There" or "Escape From Reason". Schaeffer is a Christian, and his philosophy is explicitly Christian. If that isn't your perspective, you still might benefit from his analysis of why modern thought ended up where it did.