|
When science does not serve people, and merely the interests of those with capital, it is natural that some people will want to reject it. Though, ideally we can find a middle ground. I guess there are many causes for anti-science sentiment, but interestingly, part of it comes from being "too objective". Positivism often fails at trying find truth that's useful/empowering to individual people, even if it is good at mastering nature/growing economies. We're seeing history repeat itself. Overabundance of positivist rationality at the cost of human subjectivity is precisely what the Counter-Enlightenment and Romantics were reacting to. It's also what sociologists such as Max Weber spoke about, and Marx, and especially the philosophers of the Frankfurt School (e.g. Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse). Let's hope we can find a new Romanticism, to come to value the subjective in addition to the objective as a society, to create science like literature that's actually empowering to people. Otherwise, radical rejections of objective truth—e.g. the Flat Earth movement, fascism—are natural, albeit deluded responses, as has been seen historically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism |
There are many scientists who infuse their scientific pronouncements with opinions and politics.