This is not a critique of science. This is a critique of scientific governance, philosophy, and humanities. My target is such as Orientalism, scientific state control, colonialism, colonial studies, purely scientific business, etc., not the work of our esteemed colleagues of the white lab coat who have done and continue to do amazing things towards worthy moral ends (though they would do well to lend an ear).
Ah the blessed and unbiased scientist! To be so highly educated to look beyond the petty squabbles that make up whimsical human life. So fortunate to know better than to be mislead by wandering feeling; to have absolute clarity of vision.
Cut off the interior! Such is the source of doubt and falsehood. There is only a carefully arranged set of external facts and the perfection of their coming together. Look upon the subject, know it, and know too what can be done with it.
But what should be done? The scientist who would have you believe they know is not the true scientist. Afterall, are you not impartial, dear scientist? Is not choosing necessarily partiality? You have picked one thing over another, but why? You are a fraud. You claim perfection but deny it.
Ah, I see you go to work, o great philosopher with your charts and your graphs. “the science says” just precisely what you would like it to say and nothing more or less. Are you careful? Do you reevaluate your opinions when you see the hard evidence? Hard evidence you made for your ideas; for an evaluation directed towards your philosophy. You desired the creation of a specific set of options and the selection of one of them, and in your philosophical wisdom you made it so; walking down one path in your inquiry over all others.
But I make too fine a point to which you will doubtless admit. Settle on imperfect science for a good cause.
Yet science is not made for the determining of a good cause. I ask you dearly, consider for a moment from where came the determining of your cause? The partiality that motivates you? Examine it closely and observe the problem of its imperfect coming about. Examine every decision with an eye to the philosophy.
For it may be that you are the scientist who is not the philosopher. The one who is the becoming of another’s vision into reality. Or rather, such is guaranteed. The paths of research are laid out in such a way. The method of science is laid out in such a way. The training of a scientist is laid out in such a way.
Science is a philosophy of the lack of philosophy, of the insertion of a deafening practicality into the process of arriving to practice. It puts the moral on hold to question how the moral can come about. Yet such a task is impossible. The scientist is the bridge by which the moral can be brought to practice. Yet the lack of morality in this perfection of practice destroys the possibility of a such an end.
Scientific method is the execution of a morality. Yet the locus of morality is always unscientific: specified by the channels of culture and history—which were constructed by past authority—and by the whims of those presently in power. These steer a constant path—though one that only amalgamates the goods of those who have been strong, rather than serving all in common. A common good can only be realized when every actor stands up and philosophizes roguishly; when all who act question and interrogate themselves as constant philosophical practice. Such is the precise opposite of perfected, methodical, scientific practice.
To take the subject and analyze them and understand them; to quantify them from the outside. This necessitates a desire to change them and a purpose for change. And who defines this purpose? Power. Its holders drive the direction of change. They are philosophers and the products of philosophers and can only be challenged by philosophers. Science and the scientist then are the perfected instrument of power. They are abstracted from moral thought, seeking understanding for the purpose of change without determining the direction of change—which is given by powerholders, directly or indirectly.
To uplift the sciences as truth is to uplift the exercise of existing power. Science is method, and if method becomes truth, then its motivation must be uplifted as beyond doubt. Debate is to be had over the method and no longer over the goal. Meanwhile, more and more scientists are produced; a surplus of means that are easily harnessed by those who control ends. The existing power thus becomes more and more efficient as resistance shrivels and the production of new philosophy stops.
Thus those in power say “quickly, we must make these philosophers, artists and humanists work scientifically. Science is the only acceptable method of truth. Defund all others.” Yet it is only unscientific convictions, philosophical convictions, that can drive the direction of science. the more these can be removed the more secure is the position of those who hold power. The more secure is their philosophy that ultimately makes and drives them. For without new philosophy, what exists may freely carry itself on to perfection without the need for change.
