Wandering Reflections
Click for incongruity.
Bowser said:
Does science have a political identity/agenda?
Perhaps strangely, religion makes for an excellent juxtaposition.
There is in human behavior and psychology a basic brain impulse, having to do with creativity and comparison and the prevalence of basic living priorities, that we would describe as a
religious impulse.
Kharkovli, for instance, explains―
The conception that "Sufism is the inner component of religion", too, should be acceptable enough if it is seen from enough examples that religion is often mainly an accretion of superficialities around an ancient core which may be reclaimed ....
(176)
―and this is well enough if we leave it solely to the interpretation of religious belief. More objective consideration would question the "ancient core which may be reclaimed", both in the context of the core itself for detail of its composition, and also what constitutes a reclamation.
The ancient core, as such, seems to simply be a useful cognitive and behavioral adaptation. That set of cognitive processes and behavioral traits is at least partially, though not likely wholly, within our capacity to control. The outcomes of that shaping and controlling are what we tend to think of as religion.
There are the basic "religious" impulses and behaviors, and then there is "religion" as we contextualize it whenever we use the word.
And this is the juxtaposition.
Science simply is. The basic concept of science represents a fundamental means of inquiry; the only grounds for doubt at this point would be to complain that inquiry, in and of itself, is inherently extraneous, though the evolutionary context of the simple, basic fact that the human species and its concomitant societal endeavor still exists would proscribe the range of extraneity in such a manner as to preclude inherentness.
Rarely do people use the word in this context. Everything else is accretion.
We all get what the question means; the point is not to doubt the question.
But the basic concept of science precludes a political identity or agenda. Identity and agenda are subordinate to external influence.
To wit, in the private sector science is intended to make money. That's it. That's all there is to it. That is what sets the priority for what gets explored and pursued.
In other settings, science is ostensibly attuned to this or that purpose―curing cancer, developing clean energy, figuring out what is taking place at the leading edge of an expanding Universe, &c.―but even then is subject to the people deciding what gets explored and pursued. At a very basic level, perhaps you and I perform an experiment; the result is hardly a world-changing outcome, but what do we do next? Perhaps we propose different subsequent experiments; these proposals would be subject to our own priorities. Perhaps we leave it alone and go do other things, either together or separately, and those decisions would be subject to our own priorities.
Somewhere in between "curing cancer" and collaborators looking at their results and figuring out what to do next is a context or valence corresponding to the question of whether science has a political identity or agenda. It's a fairly specific context, but remains somewhat undefined.
Generally speaking, "science should be apolitical", but insofar as what we know and what we learn affects the decisions we make, "science becomes inherently political".
The important thing is the
becoming.
Because that, too, is us. Not just you and me. People.
Much of the politics about science are assigned. Some of the seemingly inherent questions present themselves as obvious; if we thought we could pursue a gun big enough to shatter a planet that would have to be installed in a space station the size of a small moon, should we? There's a pretty good argument against.
To the other, there are some traditional ideas in our society that keep running up against stubborn reality, and science often seems an easy scapegoat. Even the observable is subject to doubt among some of these.
Science becomes political because we perceive a stake in defining it so.
The question does arise; we need not doubt the question.
Look, humans have creative and comparative faculties; we tell stories; a mythic comparison to abstract perfection is inevitable. There is, however, reasonable question whether using that comparison to ... er ... ah ... well, there are a bunch of issues that could fill that slot.
But it's true. If carbon dating was as wrong as my daughter's maternal grandfather needs it to be in order to accommodate his belief, your mobile phone wouldn't work. Masturbation doesn't really grow hair on your palms or make you go blind. I mean, sure, I guess the latter if your vascular condition is poor enough to stroke out while stroking off, but generally speaking, no. There really are genotypic XY human beings displaying XX phenotype; it is true that our traditional roles for people do not find scientific support. It is true that according to science, there is no reason marijuana should have been Schedule I while methamphetamine was Schedule II; there is no scientific support for the disparity in the former five-for-five federal crack standard.
Here's a controversial one: It is true science clearly indicates it is unwise for the health of a general population to entertain wilful abstention from vaccination without specific medical necessity. The political question there essentially considers one's right to assert oneself as a dinosaur
as well as require that of everyone else as well. The science says what the science says, and if the question, "How do we live longer, less suffering lives?" is somehow "political", we must also recognize that at some point the politics oppose the human endeavor itself. It seems easier to simply disregard that valence of politics. Probably safer, too.
Science is science. What we do with it introduces the question of political identity and agenda.
____________________
Notes:
Kharkovli, Adilbai. "Those Astonishing Sufis". Sufi Thought and Action. Ed. Idries Shah. London: Octagon Press, 1990.