Re: Why I won't support the March for Science

Pasted there/here (apologies for excess passion but Stengers would permit it): Obviously, defending what counts for capitalist science these days/since forever, is not progressive. Why this is even necessary to state I'm not sure. How hard it is to politicize/deconstruct the 'deformazione

Re: Why I won't support the March for Science

It's more complicated: This would not only create an oligarchy of those of who have the means to fund scientific research for backing up a political demand. Even worse, it's not about funding scientific research, it's about buying 'results' and 'scientists'. 3) Just as opposition against

Re: Why I won't support the March for Science

3) Just as opposition against Trump creates false solidarity with neoliberals, opposition against climate change-denying, creationist etc. politics can create false solidarity with a Popperian understanding of research and knowledge. (Coincidentally, Popper's philosophy

Why I won't support the March for Science

(This was a social media posting, but I thought that I should share it with the larger Nettime community. -F) Why I won't support the 'March for Science':* 1) The central demand of the 'March for Science', "evidence-based policies and regulations", is toxic and dangerous. It means that

Re: Phillips/Beyer/Coleman: "false assumption (Mez Breeze & Andr�)

- Forwarded message from Mez Breeze - From: Mez Breeze Subject: Re: Phillips/Beyer/Coleman: "false assumption that Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 05:30:25 +1000 To: nettime-l "The search for sodalities is constant. Nuances are

Re: Phillips/Beyer/Coleman: "false assumption that

> On 21-Apr-2017, at 8:50 PM, Brian Holmes wrote: > > The only way to regain any kind of political autonomy - by which I mean, > the capacity to relate deliberately to the present - is to form groups > that feel, think, discuss and act. The group needs dense ties