Jarvis323 said:
That's an interesting example, thanks. I'm not sure it qualifies, but it isn't clear-cut. The claim being made is that science itself is a tool and authority for imperialism, but I'm not sure eugenics is even a scientific idea, and it certainly is not a scientific authority. For the Galileo example, the Catholic Church is the authority and the idea is Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism.
Eugenics is the idea and policy that you can improve the population by selective breeding. As a face-value scientific idea, it is obviously true. What makes it bad is that it's a political goal/philosophy.
Part of why this entire idea of science as a tool of oppression is alien to me is that it is just not a feature of modern western thought. Catholicism dominated for centuries, and thought/knowledge-control
was a feature of that system. It may be true that Hitler used thought control, including the incorporation of Eugenics, but he was quite a flash-in-the-pan and I'm not sure it can be said that he was a scientific authority.
Further and more specifically, science as a justification for slavery was old/poorly-developed, thin and dominated by politics/economics. The tail is wagging the dog in these examples. Or maybe more specifically, these ideas long pre-date science and while science was maturing people often used early/malformed scientific ideas/processes in an attempt to hold on to them, whereas once matured, science ultimately played more of a role in tearing them down. To put it another way: science wasn't needed to create slavery. So why was it used in an attempt to justify maintaining it? The answer is: science was pointing away from slavery. It was a threat to the status quo, so it had to be corrupted in attempt to maintain the status quo. That's not a failure of science, it's a failure of non-science authorities to try to corrupt science.
Jarvis323 said:
I don't see the correspondence between your response and what I said, and what you are asking me to provide. What I said is simpler said that authoritative groups sometimes get to decide what gets funded, and what gets published.
If that were all you said, it would be totally bland and pointless to say. I broke apart the quote, and the prior sentence provided the point/context: "Throughout history, scientific authority has been abused in various terrible ways..."
Not being interested in someone's research is not abuse.
Jarvis323 said:
Some of that authority could have come from a monarchy, or emperor, a dictator, or authoritarian regime. These things happen even today in some countries.
What's key here is that (for example), the Catholic Church did in fact claim to be The Source of Knowledge and for many centuries successfully wielded control of knowledge itself as a weapon. And governments adopted religion in large part to harness knowledge control as a weapon. But that's pre-science history and science is the literal antithesis of that. The rise of science with the Enlightenment was an explicit rejection of central/government/religious control of knowledge. If current countries are trying to do something similar, it is most certainly not with the blessing/assistance of scientific communities.
Jarvis323 said:
But it's also happened among scientific communities like we have now. Papers are more or less likely to be accepted depending on trends in what these communities are interested in. And contradicting others in your community can sometimes be an uphill battle. Here is one example,
That's just so bland/mundane. The claims made in the new policy are about imperialism, not handwashing or fickle interests/attention. The lack of support for string theory (example - I don't even really know) is not slavery. Big claims need big examples.
Jarvis323 said:
Historically, researchers have had to deal with dogmas of various levels of absurdity that have influenced what kind of research is easier or harder to get funding for or get published.
Example? Again, please recognize/keep to the context of the discussion. The scientific community not immediately dropping an established idea in favor of a new one has nothing to do with imperialism/slavery.
Jarvis323 said:
You are asking for examples for something that is self evident.
I retract that request, as re-reading I see the claim as stated is too bland and disconnected from the subject of the thread to be useful/relevant. Please remember what we are talking about here. We're talking about science as a tool for global domination.
Jarvis323 said:
The people who propose to do scientific research, whether it be research about making televisions or AI, or whatever, have to convince funding agencies that the research is worthwhile. So in their proposals they have an incentive obviously to highlight the benefits of the said research to society. Likewise, as already said, researchers are also commonly incentivized to make a case about the benefits their work in their published papers, both as a way to demonstrate they've achieved the goals of the work outlined in the proposals...
Of course. But that does not convey permanent ownership of the idea. Heck, practical applications aren't even a requirement of research.
Caveat: Science isn't technology, so the examples are off-point anyway. You're confusing commercial technology development with pure scientific research. There can be overlap, but their purpose is very different. Commercial technology research has to bear commercial fruit or the company will go out of business. Academic research sometimes would be nice to have commercial application, but it isn't a requirement and in a lot of cases is undertaken with the expectation that it won't. This depens on the department though.
Jarvis323 said:
Likewise, as already said, researchers are also commonly incentivized to make a case about the benefits their work in their published papers, both as a way to demonstrate they've achieved the goals of the work outlined in the proposals, and as a way to convince their peers that their work is high impact enough to be accepted to a particular journal.
I'd like to hear a scientist weigh in on that, because I don't think commercial application significance weighs heavily on publication-worthiness. But I could be wrong.
Jarvis323 said:
TV also has been used for propaganda. But that wasn't the point. I never claimed TV is a tool of imperialism. I was making the point that science is steered based on judgements about the value of doing it, and scientists have to make the case that their work is valuable.
Well...to summarize my responses above then, I'd say your pulling the discussion off-track. The question at hand is indeed about science as a tool of imperialism, so answers about the workings of modern research funding and publishing are far off-point.
Jarvis323 said:
I mean, for example, the atom bomb.
I guessed that in a late edit -- yeah, that's a piece of technology, not "science" itself.
Jarvis323 said:
I don't see anything there relevant to the topic we are discussing, but admittedly I only skimmed it. If you could quote something I'd appreciate it. What I see there is re-examining historical myths like the US frontier and Columbus stories, which are told from the perspective of the conquerors. That's a valid re-alignment of history, but it has nothing to do with science.