> Increasing knowledge is the only legitimate goal of science.

Should we build a super collider in Texas or a space telescope at the sun-earth L2 point?

There are many factors when considering what science to fund, but if society is footing the bill then the expected benefit to society should be a big part of the decision.

> Increasing knowledge is the only legitimate goal of science.

According to some, not according to others. There is no consensus on what science is. Prominent philosophers like Foucault say science is a power-confirming tool first, and therefore definitely political.

That is how I feel about economics. It is just there to justify what is already happening, this actually has the counterproductive side effect that people think being wealthy is a reward for good and moral behaviour which is of course ridiculous. There are many ways to become rich and there is nothing about it that requires it to be morally good or fair.

It's like that Debt book from David Graeber where in the beginning he talks about how it is odd that paying debts is supposed to be good moral behaviour as if taking on business risk and failing is a decision that people make voluntarily. It is especially strange because lenders slap on a risk premium on top of their loans because they are fully aware that some are going to default.

> Foucault say science is a power-confirming tool first

Can you summarize why Foucault thought the application of the scientific method to empirical questions is “power-confirming first?” If that’s not what he meant by science then what was he specifically referring to?

I've read some of Foucault's work, and this is my honest take:

He was an actual communist who thought of everything in terms of "the struggle." Scientists (etc.) are respectable? They must be oppressing people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

A large portion of philosophers are “actual communists”, since they actually read Marx

EDIT replying to sub comment (I am once again rate limited)

Indeed he literally wrote an essay called “On the ruthless criticism of everything existing” which argued against the French socialists who came up with prescriptions rather than solid critiques. Marxism isn’t about communism, it’s about criticising capitalism. That’s why he spent so little time talking about communism. That would be like a slave or a serf wondering what might come next. A strong scientific (in the German sense) critique was his project

Marx is good when it comes to explaining things. Less so when it comes to prescriptions on how to fix them.

Foucault lived when the actual Nazis were in power and saw the rise of eugenics, so I'd bet that has more to do with his relating power and the course of science than "scientists are respectable ergo oppressive". Iirc he was also fairly clear about how his analyses were rooted in observation of actual occurrence, and not an attempt to divine the essence of the idea of science and power.

context, man. it matters.

> rooted in observation of actual occurrence

So by observation of actual occurrence Foucault means ignoring the entire history of science radically improving living conditions and extending lifespans for the previous centuries and instead conflating it with Nazis? That explains a lot.

Orwell was a generation ahead of Foucault, but he lived through many of the same events. Unlike Foucault, he drew the correct conclusions about them. His work will still be read when Foucault is just a footnote.

You can find someone to disagree on anything. There are people who think we never landed on the moon. There were undoubtedly those who thought Copernicus was full of it. They were wrong.

And Foucault is only "prominent" for people who can't do science, or really anything else useful.

Exactly, anyone that would bring him up in this discussion, and expect it to actually contribute to the topic at hand, can go Foucault themselves with a rusty hammer and sickle.

So linguistics, history, archeology to only speak of the social sciences I'm interested in aren't science, and aren't useful.

Ok, thanks for your opinion i guess.

Foucault is prominent for me as a physicist

Makes sense, but isn't this bad? Shouldn't we aspire to have science not be what Foucalt says it is?

Foucault would say yes, but I'm not so sure. I follow more Graeber's point of view that scientists are essentially shamans, and that you probably want to be a good or useful shaman.

Whether that means political or apolitical is hard to assess. I would say that the aspiration either way might be good for your own work, but shouldn't be used to judge the scientific work of others.

Why is applying knowledge not a legitimate goal of science? When you learn that action X results in more suffering than the alternative action Y, should you not put that knowledge to use for political policy?

You should, and I don’t think the author would disagree. But it’s important to maintain a distinction between science your potentially science-informed political advocacy. If you don’t, how can anyone who disagrees with you on the merits of action Y trust what you have to say?

They could for example look at the papers that I published that explain my reasoning and show my data.

Can they trust that you've explained your reasoning honestly and showed all your data? In the political arena proper, it's very common to see politicians fail to mention inconvenient data or present unsound arguments which don't actually describe how they came to their conclusions.

There is no complete trust in life, no matter what. I can't trust myself that the data I collected myself and the conclusions I drew myself are correct. That's why we have scientific discourse, where other scientists read your papers, think that it's hot garbage and do their own investigation.

Scientist here. A scientist who fails to have a positive impact on society is a failure. There are lots of failures in science.

how do you define legitimacy, in this case? feels like an odd term to use in a discussion about objectivity

> Increasing knowledge is the only legitimate goal of science. If you wanted to benefit society, you should have gone into a different line of work.

And who are you, so wise in the ways of science, to decide what the only legitimate goal of science can be?

Science, technology, none of these exists in a vacuum. People, even academics, have a life outside of their work. What affects that life affects what they work on as well. It's only natural.