I have written frequently on the problem of scientism. See, for example, Science Versus Scientism: How to Spot the Difference; The Problem of Scientism and its Solution in Historical Materialism; The Fauci Principle: Technocracy and the Depoliticization of Tyranny. I have also written on the corruption of science by corporate interest. See, for example, We Have Become Eisenhower’s Worst Fears: The Establishment of the Scientific-Industrial Complex; Refining the Art and Science of Propaganda in an Era of Popular Doubt and Questioning. In this essay I revisit the matter of scientism as an expression of corporate marketing and public relations.
We need to pay attention to the question: For whom does the scientist work? If he is a traditional intellectual, then he is likely free to do his work in accordance with the objectives of science. His independence does not guarantee that he knows his art, but it greatly enhances his chances. If, on the other hand, he is an organic intellectual for capitalism, i.e., a scientist working for a corporation or university program/project directed by the business community, then he is likely doing the work of a capitalist firm or industry, which we can see in the areas of chemical manufacturing, energy production, the medical-industrial complex (which includes pharmaceuticals), and the military-industrial complex is performed for the sake of profits not enlightenment.
Science has been profoundly corrupted by profit and power. It has become a technocratic means of control and class domination. It is an ideological endeavor. Moreover, programs producing scientists are determined by the cultural, economic, and political needs of the elite. The degrees obtained from leading institutions are often without rigor or substance. It is well known that in many fields the majority of published studies—in peer-reviewed academic journals—cannot be replicated. Bad science is ubiquitous these days—and has been for years. Indeed, in many cases, nonscientists uncorrupted by corporate power or not left ignorant by ideological programming are much better equipped to think objectively and for the general population than are scientists corrupted and specialized.
Democratic-republicanism demands that the people shape policy through their elected representatives. So why are we asked to defer to experts and scientists? The desire that technocrats tell us what to do with our lives lives via the administrative route is a totalitarian desire. People who advocate for the latter are advancing not science but scientism, which is a religious-like ideology masquerading as science. The demand from these people is that we exhibit a faith-like belief in science. But science is the opposite of faith-belief. Science is about reason and evidence. That means that anybody who cares to learn to think in that manner and does the work can do science.
Yes, scientists are human and, as such, corruptible and fallible. But science as an enterprise is corrupted by the same forces that corrupt scientists—to the point where we can no longer trust the institution. (See The Cynical Appeal to Expertise.)
* * *
I expressed this opinion on the Facebook page of another users, which I rarely do. “You are free to believe what you want to believe,” was the response. Yes, of course. At least for now. But then again, are we sure? At any rate, the granting of my freedom was made by somebody who claims a science background. This was my response:
I have been a professional scientist now for almost three decades, a tenured professor for twenty-three years, with published articles (including an award winning paper), chapters, and essays in peer-reviewed journals, university press books, encyclopedia, and other venues. I have presented dozens of conference papers since 1993. Not only have I published empirical research, I’ve been teaching research methods since before my PhD program, and applying my research skills to practical areas, such as large-scale program assessment affecting the lives of thousands of people (the elderly, the addicted).
I told the person that I was only raising my background because she did. By her lights, I should therefore have something relevant to say. I know what I’m talking about—and would even without all those degrees and experience, of course, because I do my own research—and in my judgment she was expressing entirely too much faith in the enterprise. That’s how people get suckered, I noted: “they trust the experts” simply because they are experts (which experts) not because they, the faithful, actually take the time to study the matter under consideration. I stressed that one need not be a credentialed expert. But one needs to know how to do research and learn to tell the difference between “changing science” and an act of lying one’s way out of having been debunked.
As this impacts the lives of everyday people, we could not have had a better example of scientism than the COVID-19 pandemic, which was a disaster precisely because of scientific illiteracy (the technocracy means to keep the public ignorant and make them that way) and trust in experts. Progressive Democrats were especially subject to being fooled, as surveys of their knowledge of disease and death were widely off the mark. Comically so.
For example, on the question of masks, folks kept hearing about research from the medical journals. That’s the wrong field. The right field is industrial hygiene, which shows that masks don’t work (really, common sense could have told people that). Were populations more curious and self-reliant and less obedient—and had institutions not censored and de-platformed those who could have helped people know where to look for reliable information—that would have known that masks were about control not public health. And all the rest of it. We could have en masse debunked the prevailing “science” concerning COVID-19, resisted effectively, and saved countless lives and businesses. (See Masks and COVID-19: Are You Really Protected?)
I concluded my argument with an appeal to my life in scientific research to note that I have had a front row seat to a lot of crackpot nonsense passed off as science for years now. I noted that, presently, humankind are in an era of science denialism—and it’s scientists and the people who trust them who are leading the way out of the Enlightenment. Scientism has a definite politics, which I noted two paragraphs ago. It’s there folks ought to start looking if they want to chart a path back towards the light of truth.
The anger you need in your life:
freedom and reason 