Yes, this “false science” is epistemologically inseparable from the interests of capital. Science is used to assert this specific epistemology at the expense of all others. Too often we consider science to be a list of facts that have been produced instead of a methodology that is grounded in epistemology.
My issue is that Science™ is not the truth, and there is not one science, there never was. If we accept capital dominates us epistemologically then we accept the truth of class struggle, sure, but to say that science is organized around capitalism actually drinks some of the kool-aid that is being challenged here. It suggests we can merely separate “science” from capitalism for the win. Wrong. How would it even be science™ anymore? There are many under recognized sciences that already do this by virtue of not being the supremacist epistemology of the enlightenment, and by virtue of how robust and tried they are, but we are too busy trying to rescue an epistemology that has been distilled by capital for centuries to recognize the extent of the harm that has been done or the futures we are foreclosing.
I just can’t see the problem as simple as capitalists don’t like the Truth™ so they just ignore it. Rather it is an entire process that begins with researchers and their own processes and ethics which are formally grounded in accumulation of knowledge (and thus profit). THIS is the enlightenment showing. The enlightenment is an assertion of intellectual and epistemological supremacy over the world and over all of history.
The lie of enlightenment is in its name. There is nothing enlightening about claiming victory over the ancients or taking up epistemological supremacy. The enlightenment did not invent science, it is the result of centuries of philosophical discourse and material development making the incredibly stupid statement that they have THE way to create knowledge and the ONLY way to understand HOW they know it’s the only way to create knowledge. And of course, this method–dissection-- is an embarrassing epistemology to claim supremacy for when it literally can’t understand anything in relationship with anything else. Likewise, our boy Hickle (i love his work) separates science from capitalism erroneously and somewhat sanctimoniously, and it produces a limited understanding of both.
Capital is not guilty of wrongthink, it is guilty of shaping “truth” undemocratically and without proper recognition of the living world. I don’t think we need to save science™ from capital. I think Id rather venture to reject the enlightenment broadly instead and open up to different epistemologies and approach questions more pluralistically and reflexively.
Capitalism uses science in the same way religion does. It cherry picks the parts of science that it thinks helps its case and everything else is blasphemy.
It’s kind of like how the Catholic church now believes in “evolution” but God was the one putting commands into the game engine console to make things evolve, and that the ability for living things to evolve at all is in fact proof of intelligent design.
“Science” vs. Religion is a struggle over epistemology more than over fact. How do we know what we know? Different epistemologies may agree on what is real or even on the nature of existence to some degree. “”“”“Religion”“”“”" or Catholics or whatever, will have its own way of knowing how to know what is known. Capitalism has its way.
Usually when religious apologists use “science” to make a point they are using rhetoric to speak across an epistemological divide, and they almost always center facts–the products of epistemology–to ground the conversation. Every epistemology must ask others “Do your knowledge creators not agree with this fact?” to set or test basic ground rules for the discourse.
This exorcise actually disciplines religion in the favor of enlightenment science, because the enlightenment would never recognize an epistemology other than its own. The Catholic Church has to play capitals game to beg for recognition. I find it undignified on the part of the church that it would bend its own terms so that they even stand a chance at being recognized by capital–“Intelligent design.” Also, i think we all know that there are a lot of folks who eat up religious apologetics are still excellent at advancing capitalist empire. There is a lot ontological overlap between Christianity and Capitalism across the west so they actually have a ton in common anyway.
So what im saying is that this is not how capitalism uses science. There are no inconvenient facts when you dominate how knowledge is known. Power may be subject to some kind of hard “truth,” but such truths can be created, asserted, delegitimized, whatever. We can live in denial and capitalist relations can reproduce. We can live in full recognition of climate change and capitalist relations can reproduce. Both are true right now.
exactly right
@yogthos so true
Maybe just stop calling it capitalism and rebrand it greedism. Truthful and clear, easy to qualify as one.of the seven deadly sins for easy reference.
What would that accomplish?
Clear labeling for people who dont really understand what capitalism is.
Better to treat people with respect and just explain them. If we try to oversimplify everything, we make it confusing and create a section of people that are in the know, and a section that aren’t. That disrupts the mass line.
Nah, bunch of asshole would say greed is natural to humans so greedism is the best system… Wait some asshole already do that!
