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:
This 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 other
science systems. As I’ve indicated, various aspects of science could
be potentially be changed: research directions, institutional context,
participation in research, decision-making.
