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.

Post-Rev Theoretical Physics

I was recently asked by two separate, presumably non-anarchist, entities if and how theoretical or high-energy physics would exist in an anarchist society. There are several implicit underlying questions in this basic question, and I will attempt to answer each in turn. I have been asked this question by other anarchists before, and my usual response is that nothing would change in my personal situation. I work odd jobs, find strange ways to pay for things when needed, garden and sometimes forage for food, and try to never spend money, so that I can devote most of my time to research. While I believe that what I and other physicists are doing is for the ultimate good of humanity — trying to understand the seemingly chaotic patterns of our universe, which is fundamental to any correct understanding of anything else — we’re not exactly putting food in hungry mouths, ensuring shelters for the houseless, providing medical aid to the sick and old, or doing any of the number of things which are generally considered socially beneficial. As an anarchist, I do not believe it is society’s responsibility to support me in my research unless my research is directly assisting others in need. To believe contrary would be entirely selfish, not to mention entirely ignorant of context: the context here being that, while, yes, I am a unique individual with my own sets of needs and desires (namely, to sit around staring at sheets of equations all day, with a break to mix a heaping of vegan gluten-free protein powder into a glass of water), there is no such thing as a system in total isolation. Individualist anarchist as I may be, if I have learned anything from physics I know that one for a fact. Thus, I must take into account that if I am not contributing to the rest of society, then the rest of society owes nothing to me. And as much as I would like to discount the rest of human society, I still have to share air and soil and a few other things with them while I’m stuck on this stupid cosmic shitpile. Anyway, what this all boils down to is that there is very little opportunity for a physicist to only work on physics in an anarchist society.

But this time the question is different. Non-anarchists have begun to ask the question, and now the answer must take a different form. As I mentioned, it entails other implicit underlying questions: What will the anarchist revolution look like? Will it be a series of bloody and dramatic confrontations with authorities in the streets? Will it be a gradualist or reformist shift in sociocultural perspectives? Will it be a total collapse of modern civilization and requisite technologies? Will “rogue” AIs or the emergence of trans-/post- humans enable us to cooperate efficiently en masse without ingrained hierarchies? Will someone finally hack the gibson and ‘;shutdown —? What will the nascent anarchist society look like, and what …

Page 1 / 1

Patterns in the Void

Other articles

Post-Rev Theoretical Physics

Other articles

blogroll

social