Re: <nettime> Forget who owns the truth. Just talk about the weather.

[Christian Swertz via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

Hi Brian,

thank you so much - it's quite inspiring to discuss these things here.

One might indeed blame the concept of value free sciences for some of 
the problems that have been created with these results. On the other 
hand, value based sciences also caused many problems. It seems, that 
values are a relevant part of the problem. What can we do? Well - maybe 
it's worth to assume that this:
> Critical reasoning requires the suspension of judgment in favor of 
> analysis and hypothesis.

is true in some cases, but not in all cases. Can we for a moment assume 
that the judgement of analysis and hypothesis is possible? Well - if we 
maintain the sentence, we can, since the sentence is a judgment of 
analysis and hypotheses. If a judgement is possible - how can we judge? 
One option might be to conduct a kind of a legal proceeding. So  - would 
you like to play the prosecutor? Like this:

> This is primarily done in universities, where it has been made into an 
> ethos, that is, an overarching orientation toward life. The result is 
> ever-increasing difficulty to share critical truth with others.

If I may assume that I'm the defender, my argument is: It might be the 
case that some critical truth is difficult to share. But there are many 
scientists that are committed to participating in public debates (like 
this one in my case), public understanding of science and things like 
that. And there are also many scientists that are active in the civil 
society (like the prosecutor argued himself later on). This is accepted 
by universities as institutions (and sometimes explicitly supported). It 
is thus not convincing that universities can be blamed for increasing 
difficulties to share critical truth with others.

I plea for not guilty to this charge.

> I think the university, and in particular, the doctrine of value-free 
> science, is at least partially to blame for this. Value-free science 
> rests on a belief (notice the word) that critical assessments can be 
> presented to competent authorities in order to produce the right 
> decisions. Although demonstrably false, the belief allows for a very 
> comfortable exercise of critique without political engagement. It also 
> absolves scientists from responsibility for technologies of all sorts.

In this case, the definition of "belief" is relevant. The prosecutor 
argues that scientists assume political decision can be based on their 
research, and since political decisions are value based contradict 
themselves and are thus lying. But according to some scientist's 
statements, some scientists assume that only scientific decisions, 
considerably about scientific truth, can be based on their research - 
not political decisions. Thus the general statement is not justified. I 
plea for not guilty to this charge.

> The problems that our societies are facing have become vast. Every 
> profession manipulates highly complex critical truths which are turned 
> into technologies (whether machines or organizational techniques). 
> Suspension of judgment accompanies the application of these 
> technologies ("I'm just doing my job," etc). The whole situation is 
> very convenient for capitalism, aka the rule of interest groups. 
> Public curiosity declines in the face of all these hermetic spheres of 
> knowledge and activity.

While I'm not sure that the translation of _critical_ truth into 
technology is successful so often and that translation and application 
are the same, I agree that capitalists developed translations and 
applications to modify these processes for their benefit. That is quite 
impressive. Impressive ist also the fact that these strategies are 
resistant against many resistance strategies. In that case, I plead 
guilty to the charge. What is the sentence again? Ending alienation by 
uniting state, church, science and economy in a unified true faith?

According to my modest knowledge of history, this would turn all trials 
like this one into blasphemy. And would make me as the defender a heretic.

What does a space station ticket cost again?

--
Liebe Grüße,

Christian Swertz
https://www.swertz.at

--
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org