|
Science is a comparatively detached island in the societal landscape. As each other community, practicing scientists speak a dialect of the mutual language. One of the tasks of science (and scientists) is, according to one of the theoretical legacies of Marx, to show that the unfeigned nature of things is dissimilar that it is each day and once in a while (alienated) aspect (The development of Science; an introduction to the doctrine of science – Gerard de Vries). Marx — the example set out in the book — was in that case a scientist who changed our thought on labor. According to Marx, humane labor is exploited by capitalists. To “see” this relation you need to dig under the “apparent” superficial level. Then after economic analysis you observe that the real relation amid wage and labor is deviated because of entrepreneurial profit. The cause being that workers need to compensate more for a product than the wage they receive when making this (same) product. Marx changed economic thought, but likewise society. His influence was paramount. Of course his background and ideology explained the direction of his theoretical thoughts, but his study was credible, based on available selective information of that time and based on the spirit of the time. And this is — whether you agree with Marx or not — the way the scientific influence on society ought to be. Based on hard work, evidence, a resourcefulness and credibility. If your point is new, credible, innovative, challenging or other than as supposed or expected interesting, there will always be somebody who will catch the point and fetch it to the market. If not — like the recent Pluto discussion — the believability of science is at stake. © 2006 Hans Bool |
Tags: influence science, marx