Personal Studies into the Mind

Science in an (Un)Free Society

Science in a Free Society Opinions

What the fuck happened to academia in the late 20th century? Goddamn there are so many radical writers who seem emotionally hurt. Who hurt you, do you want to talk about it or would you rather be left alone to express those feelings through art? Feyeraband writes Science in a Free Society as a hate-filled polemic towards scientists in general; the entire book feels like it was written after an encounter that went something like this:

Throughout the book Paul will ramble about his personal life and it genuinely annoys me. Instead of talking about the subject of the book, he has to explain how he was inspired to write the book after walking around some Ivy league courtyard with other prestigious losers and after a mild disagreement over the value of science it was deemed necessary to put pen to paper. Oh you knew Karl Popper and have read a pamphlet Stalin wrote? Good for you. The last chapter of part 2 is the longest chapter in the book and it is just to flex all the famous people he's met and how he thinks they fell off. Hell, the majority of the first part of the book is dedicated to him thinking he's the modern day Diogenes or some shit and just cynically dissing all of the colleagues he works with for being foolish. In the 3rd part of his book, snarkily titled "Conversations with Illiterates," he explains that his writing style is a reaction to typical philosophical books which are too, "lively, vigorous, and scholarly," and are thus, "too dishonest for my taste (p. 131)." Once you accept his writing style, it actually becomes very funny - almost like a shitpost that got published. Feyeraband died a couple decades ago, but had he lived just a little bit longer he would've spent his autumn years on /pol/. In honor of his style, this paper will be written very honestly.

I went into this book hoping to discover how science functions in a free society, maybe a democratic process by which science can be freely exchanged between parties. What I got was a spit in the face and an explanation as to why science in a free society is a terrible idea. A premise which is extrapolated from Feyeraband's argument, not necessarily the argument he was attempting to make. This conclusion is only reached in light of the author's terrible arguments, and is not an abandonment of the initial research position. I will continue to find the answer to my question of how science can be made free and accessible to the world, but for now I am compelled to review and argue against this terrible polemic I was subjected to. A key argument I will make is that Marxist society will promote the use of science to achieve humanities goals while a free society, at least as Paul describes it, would do the exact opposite. Perhaps unintentionally, Paul has convinced me that a broad view of "cultural acceptance" is a poor idea when the cultures presented contain regressive ideals like misogyny, homophobia, and classism. That is not to say the Marxist tradition is inherently superior to any other tradition, nor is it morally better: it is a structure of thought which is aligned against hierarchical ideals and theorizes a way forward through the contradictions present in society.

Some Quick Distinctions

Paul lists 9 theses in chapter 2 of Science in a Free Society. For this review, I will list the 5 theses that will become relevant:

1. Traditions are neither good nor bad, they just are.

2. A tradition assumes desirable or undesirable properties only when compared with some tradition. They are subjective.

6. There are at least two different ways of collectively deciding an issue: Guided Exchange(participants adopt an established tradition and only accept responses which correspond to its standards) and Open Exchange (Tradition adopted by parties is unspecified in the beginning and develops as the exchange goes along).

8. A free society will not be imposed but will emerge only where people solving particular problems in a spirit of collaboration introduce protective structures of the kind alluded to.

9. The debate settling the structure of a free society are open debates not guided debates.

Despite my preconceptions, this book about science is really about politics, as will be discussed in the next part. His arguments in the book are political because he insists that science has taken the place of religion and requires a separation from the state much in the same way. Since Feyeraband defines ideology as, "A bunch of theories combined with a method and a more general philosophical point of view (p. 101)," it acts as an umbrella for all systems of thought like political science or the philosophy of science and treats them equally.

It Isn't Just Science

Feyeraband goes out of his way multiple times throughout the book to equivocate the aims of liberalism, marxism, and fascism. This sort of rhetoric is only possible from either the most apolitical "both-sides" aunt at the Thanksgiving table, or an anarchist. Paul states that he sees anarchy as a remedy for modern science, but later refuses the label of "anarchist" (p. 127). So what was Paul? He would like to be remembered as a rebel and an anti-conformist, but he has a far more interesting past. Remember when I made that remark earlier about Feyeraband possibly enjoying /pol/? Now feels like as good a time as any to share that he was raised in Nazi Germany. That's right, Paul was a member of the Hitler Youth who later became a captain in the Nazi army during the second world war. Go fucking figure. The tip off was obvious: the uncontested acceptance of all "traditions." As a communist, I am aware that "uncontested acceptance" is a particularly generous choice of words. It gives credence to the belief that each and every tradition should be equally respected regardless of beliefs, but that is the trojan horse. There is a vast diversity of traditions, and as is pointed out by theses 1 and 2, there is only a moral attribution to each tradition by comparison to other traditions and not innately. This subjectivity is also why traditions should NOT be equally respected: suppose a tradition has a history of murdering anyone that attempts open exchange and you include them at the table. Would you like to take a guess as to what is most likely going to happen?!

Feyeraband also knows what would happen which is why he states that a protective structure should be provided: "A relativistic society will therefore contain a basic protective structure. This leads to the next argument for rationalism: Must not the structure be just? Must it not be shielded from influence? (p. 84)." His argument is that this protective structure will develop from the existing laws of the previous society by the "most efficient means available (ib id.)" The structure should not be shielded, this will only hinder the natural development of open exchange of traditions. If this open exchange leads to another patriarchal society with slavery, then that's completely acceptable!

"It (Marxism) can only contain these cultures only as secondary graftson a basic structure that is an unholy alliance of science, rationalism, and capitalism (p. 78)." Why does one culture always have to dominate? When organizing the mass line, it is understood by marxists that the masses of people play a crucial role in the development and maintenance of society. Furthermore, if the end goal is the abolishment of class and, as a consequence, the state, then democracy must be used as a tool to achieve the correct program. This program is theoretically pressed and written by a centralized executive branch, which then sends the program back to the masses who choose to make the program a reality. If the program does not align with local traditions, then the masses will inform the local cadre who then rework the plans to better fit the circumstances. Notice how throughout the process Marxism is the "protective structure" by which the plan is designed. The existence of this protective structure is not for the abolishment of local traditions but for the purpose of ensuring a guided exchange of ideas.

An Opinion About Tradition

A controversial realization shot from my mind as I finished this book: culture is used as an excuse by shitty people to continue engaging in shitty behavior. The most egregious and obvious example of this in the west is "White culture," which justifies racial hierarchy and perpetrates racism. So long as royalty is a part of the system, "British culture" justifies monarchy and a caste system based on class. Open exchange and uncritical acceptance of culture is wrong because traditions throughout human history are subjectively shitty in comparison to contemporary ideals. Paul would argue that if this was the case then an open exchange should necessarily appeal to such ideals. But an open exchange necessarily favors the general sociocultural climate of the people involved in the open exchange. For example, suppose that anarchy won overnight in 1930s Germany and open exchange immediately occurs. The members within the open exchange do not come from a vacuum: each person is a unique individual with their own learning history and traditions, and both of these will be influenced by the environment an individual was raised around. At the open exchange, a few members will be the anarchists who caused the overnight revolution, but the majority of people will be from backgrounds familiar to the local culture. For Feyeraband, it would then be up to the anarchists to debate and persuade the other members who are not familiar with anarchism. However, this is 1930s Germany and thus present at the discussion will also be fascists, which at this point in time are more connected to and in tune with the sociocultural conditions of the people in the open exchange. It would be more likely that the fascists would win over the majority in the open exchange and use violence to suppress the minority, thus dissolving the free society.

One more example from the book. He writes about evolution and giving other ideas a fair shake: "Duly elected committees of laymen must examine whether the theory of evolution is really as well established as biologists want us to believe, whether being established in their sense settles the matter, and whether it should replace other views in schools (p. 96)." Now suppose Christian fundamentalists are the "laymen," then the theory of evolution is rejected irrationally. We have seen this happen with the proof of fossil records being rejected under the notion that Satan could have planted them. If the Earth is really older than 6000 years old, then Christian doctrine is wrong and evolution is right. "That the errors of specialists can be discovered by ordinary people provided they are prepared to 'do some hard work' is the basic assumption of trial by jury... And it also assumes that a layman can acquire the knowledge necessary for understanding their procedures and finding their mistakes (p. 97)." - How, you said that the schools can't be trusted to educate and neither can the specialists in the field. Should "laymen" acquire their knowledge by the long process of discovery? Try figuring out how to build and maintain a nuclear reactor with only the assistance of other untrained people.

Conclusion

"Occasionally one almost feels inclined to say: as many scientists, as many opinions (p. 88)." - Its like they are all individuals and regardless of doctrine, they each have their own opinions. Have you tried arranging a guided exchange? It takes a hell of a lot more work than an open exchange. First everyone has to know the standards for the discussion, then a moderator of some kind is usually present to assist with leading and guiding the discussion, and even when the discussion begins there is still a great deal of internalized debate which occurs because even people following the same ideology interpret and understand it in practice differently.

I went into this book hoping to get answers about genuine concerns with modern science. I know the book was written in the 70s, but I can often find solutions to modern problems through older literature. Typically what I learned from older work is reconceptualized to fit the contemporary issue, but Feyeraband would say I'm stealing my results from a separate tradition (p. 105). I've lost passion in this writing, so if this feels rushed that's why. I had planned on giving a more nuanced view by including a counterargument section, but then I asked myself why I am writing this. When I couldn't answer the question, I decided to just publish it as is.

References

Feyerabend, P. (2018). Science in a Free Society. Verso.