5 ms·
> scientists desire to have a positive impact on society (beyond simply increasing knowledge) That's where you're off into Error Land. Increasing knowledge is
by UIUC_06 4y ago
> scientists desire to have a positive impact on society (beyond simply increasing knowledge)
That's where you're off into Error Land. Increasing knowledge is the only legitimate goal of science. If you wanted to benefit society, you should have gone into a different line of work.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago> Increasing knowledge is the only legitimate goal of science. If you wanted to benefit society, you should have gone into a different line of work. And who are you, so wise in the ways of science, to decide what the only legitimate goal of science can be? Science, technology, none of these exists in a vacuum. People, even academics, have a life outside of their work. What affects that life affects what they work on as well. It's only natural.
- 317070 4y ago> Increasing knowledge is the only legitimate goal of science. According to some, not according to others. There is no consensus on what science is. Prominent philosophers like Foucault say science is a power-confirming tool first, and therefore definitely political.
- BitwiseFool 4y agoMakes sense, but isn't this bad? Shouldn't we aspire to have science not be what Foucalt says it is?
- 317070 4y agoFoucault would say yes, but I'm not so sure. I follow more Graeber's point of view that scientists are essentially shamans, and that you probably want to be a good or useful shaman. Whether that means political or apolitical is hard to assess. I would say that the aspiration either way might be good for your own work, but shouldn't be used to judge the scientific work of others.
- nyokodo 4y ago> Foucault say science is a power-confirming tool first Can you summarize why Foucault thought the application of the scientific method to empirical questions is “power-confirming first?” If that’s not what he meant by science then what was he specifically referring to?
- ARandomerDude 4y agoI've read some of Foucault's work, and this is my honest take: He was an actual communist who thought of everything in terms of "the struggle." Scientists (etc.) are respectable? They must be oppressing people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
- bowsamic 4y agoA large portion of philosophers are “actual communists”, since they actually read Marx EDIT replying to sub comment (I am once again rate limited) Indeed he literally wrote an essay called “On the ruthless criticism of everything existing” which argued against the French socialists who came up with prescriptions rather than solid critiques. Marxism isn’t about communism, it’s about criticising capitalism. That’s why he spent so little time talking about communism. That would be like a slave or a serf wondering what might come next. A strong scientific (in the German sense) critique was his project
- int_19h 4y agoMarx is good when it comes to explaining things. Less so when it comes to prescriptions on how to fix them.
- pksebben 4y agoFoucault lived when the actual Nazis were in power and saw the rise of eugenics, so I'd bet that has more to do with his relating power and the course of science than "scientists are respectable ergo oppressive". Iirc he was also fairly clear about how his analyses were rooted in observation of actual occurrence, and not an attempt to divine the essence of the idea of science and power. context, man. it matters.
- UIUC_06 4y agoYou can find someone to disagree on anything. There are people who think we never landed on the moon. There were undoubtedly those who thought Copernicus was full of it. They were wrong. And Foucault is only "prominent" for people who can't do science, or really anything else useful.
- bowsamic 4y agoFoucault is prominent for me as a physicist
- mechanical_bear 4y agoExactly, anyone that would bring him up in this discussion, and expect it to actually contribute to the topic at hand, can go Foucault themselves with a rusty hammer and sickle.
- orwin 4y agoSo linguistics, history, archeology to only speak of the social sciences I'm interested in aren't science, and aren't useful. Ok, thanks for your opinion i guess.
- imtringued 4y agoThat is how I feel about economics. It is just there to justify what is already happening, this actually has the counterproductive side effect that people think being wealthy is a reward for good and moral behaviour which is of course ridiculous. There are many ways to become rich and there is nothing about it that requires it to be morally good or fair. It's like that Debt book from David Graeber where in the beginning he talks about how it is odd that paying debts is supposed to be good moral behaviour as if taking on business risk and failing is a decision that people make voluntarily. It is especially strange because lenders slap on a risk premium on top of their loans because they are fully aware that some are going to default.
- imadierich 4y ago
- adrianN 4y agoWhy is applying knowledge not a legitimate goal of science? When you learn that action X results in more suffering than the alternative action Y, should you not put that knowledge to use for political policy?
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoYou should, and I don’t think the author would disagree. But it’s important to maintain a distinction between science your potentially science-informed political advocacy. If you don’t, how can anyone who disagrees with you on the merits of action Y trust what you have to say?
- adrianN 4y agoThey could for example look at the papers that I published that explain my reasoning and show my data.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoCan they trust that you've explained your reasoning honestly and showed all your data? In the political arena proper, it's very common to see politicians fail to mention inconvenient data or present unsound arguments which don't actually describe how they came to their conclusions.
- adrianN 4y agoThere is no complete trust in life, no matter what. I can't trust myself that the data I collected myself and the conclusions I drew myself are correct. That's why we have scientific discourse, where other scientists read your papers, think that it's hot garbage and do their own investigation.
- arise 4y ago> Increasing knowledge is the only legitimate goal of science. Should we build a super collider in Texas or a space telescope at the sun-earth L2 point? There are many factors when considering what science to fund, but if society is footing the bill then the expected benefit to society should be a big part of the decision.
- sweetpdz 4y agoScientist here. A scientist who fails to have a positive impact on society is a failure. There are lots of failures in science.
- pksebben 4y agohow do you define legitimacy, in this case? feels like an odd term to use in a discussion about objectivity