Is Science Political?
bostonreview.net
Is Science Political?
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Is Science Political?
#2The article is about the Cold War and the history of scientific funding, not so much about recent politics.
It's interesting! But the title could be misleading. Judging from the last para, maybe that's intentional.
Just warning that this could be RTFA bait. Step lightly brave commenters!
Re: Is Science Political?
#3The article is about the Cold War and the history of scientific funding, not so much about recent politics. It's interesting! But the title could be misleading. Judging from the last para, maybe that's intentional. Just warning that this could be RTFA bait. Step lightly brave commenters!
bravery is not needed in hn, all things that offends a delicate establishment bubble mentality is always censored here.
Re: Is Science Political?
#4Isn't science, by the nature of funding, necessarily political?
Re: Is Science Political?
#5Isn't science, by the nature of funding, necessarily political?
Politics arises when 3 or more people decide on who gets what and how much of it.
Life is political all the the way down.
Re: Is Science Political?
#6Interesting article. I have a slightly related idea to mention.
The application of empiricism is suspect by the nature of perception, cognition, and the complexity of reality. This is not to say that empirical activity is not critical to science. It's just that scientific theories by necessity exceed the scope of local observation and are biased by worldview, especially as predictions become grander in scale.
Re: Is Science Political?
#7No. Stop it. Funding is, science isn't.
There's an effective debate tactic where attackers DDoS the other side with innocent questions about their premises. As defenders drown under these reasonable-seeming queries, onlookers wonder if the deluge might indicate a hidden fundamental flaw in the defenders' argument.
Re: Is Science Political?
#8the title is a bit misleading in that this is actually a book review of "Freedom’s Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science" by Audra J. Wolfe, which describes the role of global politics on the direction of american science in the 20th century.
in college, i read what i assume is a precursor to this book, entitled "The Cold War and American Science" by Stuart W. Leslie[0] which covers much of the same material, particularly the rise of MIT and stanford as top-tier schools.
but to answer the question in the title, yes, science is political, because people are political and science is a process devised and employed by humans.
[0]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/212074.The_Cold_War_and_...
Re: Is Science Political?
#9Isn't science, by the nature of funding, necessarily political?
Politics arises when 3 or more people decide on who gets what and how much of it. Life is political all the the way down.
By that definition of governance you could argue an individual must engage in politics when dealing with only his own choices. Surely there is a line between direct negotiation and political governance. I'd argue that line is drawn when representation comes into play.
Re: Is Science Political?
#10No. Stop it. Funding is, science isn't. There's an effective debate tactic where attackers DDoS the other side with innocent questions about their premises. As defenders drown under these reasonable-seeming queries, onlookers wonder if the deluge might indicate a hidden fundamental flaw in the defenders' argument.
how exact do you separate the two? without funding, science doesn’t happen? and this article is covering a specific viewpoint, but how people do science can certainly be political (and is).