This is an interesting piece on what science might look like after an anarchist revolution.
However, it is depressingly 1980s in its perceptions of developing action within modern scientific theory (specifically the section on Anarchist Epistemology, which states:
Paul Feyerabend is the most prominent philosopher to champion a different philosophy of science. He criticises the positivist, dogmatic approach to knowledge that is common in establishment science, in which almost all resources are devoted to exploring the implications of the dominant theoretical framework. He supports, instead, investigation of a range of competing theories. This is called ‘anarchist’ because there is no central theoretical dogma that dictates scientific research.
I’m sorry, and maybe it’s just within the physics community, but I would like to point out that General Relativity and the Standard Model are the currently accepted theories, while most papers I read are challenges or modifications to one or the other.
The article also disappoints with its appeals to allow the opinions of non-scientists to have as much weight as those of scientists. Should the opinions of outside entities count? Yes. Of course. Everyone should have a say in the development of things which effect the community as a whole. But — and I’ll apologize again — sorry, hippie-bro-dude-number-387-who-smokes-too-much-DMT, you don’t fucking get to tell me about your theory of how Atlantean sacred geometry causes pressure to equal gravitation. Go sell Hollywood your idea, because I sure as hell am not interested.
Ahem.
There were some positive points, especially the author’s clear elucidation of the separation of society and the scientific communities, and how this ideological framework restricts positive change:
read moreThis set of directions for an anarchist science policy implies a dramatic shift in the present social context of science: many research topics would be different, communities rather than powerful institutions would support and control the scientific enterprise, many more people would participate in research, and everyone could be involved in making science policy. Such a change is unlikely without similar changes in other aspects of society. Indeed, it has long been my opinion that science is one of the social institutions most resistant to popular participation and control.
Even radical critics of science have seldom explored the implications of self-management. Critics of science are prone to reject science itself. Science is seen as either good, neutral or bad, in each case having an essence that is independent of society. A more useful perspective for radicals is to see science as a feature or aspect of society, currently mainly oriented to the requirements of elites but with potentials for development to be a useful part of a society without hierarchy.
This is quite different from the idea that science is neutral and can be ‘used’ for good purposes or ‘abused’ for bad purposes. This is like saying that ‘the economy’ (that is, the current capitalist economy) can be used or abused, to produce food or weapons. This use-abuse model ignores the possibility of other economic systems or …
]