Is there a serious belief that Science is separated from politics ? History is incoherent with that claim, and current history too.
to be honest I observe that strangely corporate and business politics is often more politically neutral (only relative) than academic politics which is very polarized, maybe because there is less contact with reality than business. it is fascinating to see academic battle on ideology wars even in physics (war between socialized big science vs libertarianism of science, religiosity of theory vs materialism of experiments) while for corps the main war is whether a law give them enough time to adapt or attack the bottom line. I see oil corp fund wind turbines, LENr research, green NGO, shale lobbyist, ... I wont call that ideology, that is just following the wind and trying to gain time. On the opposite, and part of it is good, I see academic battling for one idea, despite evidences, until they die. 2014-12-22 4:43 GMT+01:00 H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>: > Philosopher Joseph Agassi's 1986 paper _The Politics of Science_. > > http://www.academia.edu/3705830/politics_of_science > > quotes: > > "...It is an empirical fact that when I report to colleagues, > philosophers, scientists, university professors and administrators, and > other intellectuals, that I wish to discuss the politics of science, they > first ask me if I mean science policy. When I say, no, the politics within > the commonwealth of learning is what I wish to discuss, the response is, > there is no such thing. When I say, I have ample empirical evidence to the > contrary, they say, there should be no such thing. When I retort that there > should be no more war, they say, war is a part of political life, > willy-nilly; but university politics and politics in learned societies, and > other intrigues and power struggles do not in any way belong to science. > Scientists, they say, may very well be politicians, yet as scientists they > cannot do politics within science. There is no room, they say, for politics > in science..." > > > > > " > ... > The simple-minded view does seem to be dogmatic, pig-headed and harmful. > Yet I should not be indignant, not only because indignation does not become > a philosopher, but also because it is a standard conservative defence of > the status-quo and the top-dog’s way to tell the under-dog that there is no > status-quo and no top-dog, that everyone who is very good has a road open > to the very top. In other words, the theory that there is no politics of > science is not only simple-minded, it is rooted in naivety and ignorance-in > the same naivety and ignorance exhibited by any member of any tribe, > society or club, who says the same. Nevertheless, for the top-dog to say to > the under-dog that there is no top-dog and no under-dog but that everyone > has his just share is plainly self-serving > . ..." > > > > > Harry > > > > > >
