Summary Of "Science, Politics And Scientism" By Oscar Varsavsky: UNIVERSITY SUMMARIES

By MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU

We have summarized the essentials of two chapters in the following book:
The scientific community is international and very homogeneous. Its members support each other because they have a high regard for scientific activity and its rules. The community is led by the northern countries: the United States and the USSR, which are a model of scientific decisions and directions. They are because they have created contemporary science as we know it. That is why the author says that in the scientific field is where our cultural dependence is most marked. And the hegemony of the United States is accepted by the international community because anyone can go there to study and in principle anyone can win the Nobel Prize, or other prizes that grant status. In addition, scientists from all over the world who go to study there, when they return (if they do return) are more closely linked to the North American scientific community than to that of their country of origin. They all speak solemnly of freedom of inquiry as if it were the engine of science. But the truth is that this freedom consists in choosing a research topic among those that are already fashionable in the United States. But scientists see their cultural dependence in a very different way: for them it is the most scientifically correct decision, because they see science as a unit of universal validity. Can there be different kinds of science? Contrary to popular belief, yes, of course. Science develops unevenly in its different branches. It is a historical fact that the natural sciences have been given greater importance (greater budget) than the social sciences. And within the natural sciences, there are some branches more developed than others, and this due to the injection of budget that is guided by North American fashions. But these fashions respond to historical national interests that vary from country to country and from era to era. And a different distribution of the budget would have as an immediate consequence a different science.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BOOKS AND SUMMARIES BY MAURICIO FAU
• Release date: Nov 24, 2021
• ISBN: 9798201367459

MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU

Mauricio Enrique Fau nació en Buenos Aires en 1965. Se recibió de Licenciado en Ciencia Política en la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Cursó también Derecho en la UBA y Periodismo en la Universidad de Morón. Realizó estudios en FLACSO Argentina. Docente de la UBA y AUTOR DE MÁS DE 3.000 RESÚMENES de Psicología, Sociología, Ciencia Política, Antropología, Derecho, Historia, Epistemología, Lógica, Filosofía, Economía, Semiología, Educación y demás disciplinas de las Ciencias Sociales. Desde 2005 dirige La Bisagra Editorial, especializada en técnicas de estudio y materiales que facilitan la transición desde la escuela secundaria a la universidad. Por intermedio de La Bisagra publicó 38 libros. Participa en diversas ferias del libro, entre ellas la Feria Internacional del Libro de Buenos Aires y la FIL Guadalajara.

Book preview

Summary Of Science, Politics And Scientism By Oscar Varsavsky

UNIVERSITY SUMMARIES

MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU

Published by BOOKS AND SUMMARIES BY MAURICIO FAU, 2021.

While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.

SUMMARY OF SCIENCE, POLITICS AND SCIENTISM BY OSCAR VARSAVSKY

First edition. November 24, 2021.

Copyright © 2021 MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU.

ISBN: 979-8201367459

Written by MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Varsavsky, Oscar | SCIENCE, POLITICS AND SCIENTISM | CHAPTER 3 SCIENTISM

Sign up for MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU's Mailing List

Further Reading: Summary Of Introduction To Sociology By Tom Bottomore

Also By MAURICIO ENRIQUE FAU

About the Author

About the Publisher

Varsavsky, Oscar

SCIENCE, POLITICS AND SCIENTISM

CHAPTER 3 SCIENTISM

The scientific community is international and very homogeneous. Its members support each other because they have a high regard for scientific activity and its rules. The community is led by the northern countries: the United States and the USSR, which are a model of scientific decisions and directions. They are because they have created contemporary science as we know it. That is why the author says that in the scientific field is where our cultural dependence is most marked.

And the hegemony of the United States is accepted by the international community because anyone can go there to study and in principle anyone can win the Nobel Prize, or other prizes that grant status. In addition, scientists from all over the world who go to study there, when they return (if they do return) are more closely linked to the North American scientific community than to that of their country of origin. They all speak solemnly of freedom of inquiry as if it were the engine of science. But the truth is that this freedom consists in choosing a research topic among those that are already fashionable in the United States.

But scientists see their cultural dependence in a very different way: for them it is the most scientifically correct decision, because they see science as a unit of universal validity.

Can there be different kinds of science? Contrary to popular belief, yes, of course. Science develops unevenly in its different branches. It is a historical fact that the natural sciences have been given greater importance (greater budget) than the social sciences. And within the natural sciences, there are some branches more developed than others, and this due to the injection of budget that is guided by North American fashions. But these fashions respond to historical national interests that vary from country to country and from era to era. And a different distribution of the budget would have as an immediate consequence a different science.

IT IS SAID THAT SCIENCE AS IT IS TODAY IS GOOD BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN MANY SUCCESSFUL. BUT THE SUCCESSES IT HAS HAD DO NOT INCLUDE THE ELIMINATION OF POVERTY, INJUSTICE, OR OTHER WIDESPREAD SOCIAL EVILS. IN MANY CASES, FACT SCIENCE ENCOURAGES THEM

THERE IS A CLASSIC answer to this objection, which goes like this: science is neutral, it just creates all kinds of instruments. If these instruments are used for the good or for the evil of humanity, that is not a scientific problem but a political one.

But this answer is false. Because science does not create all kinds of instruments but only those that the global system encourages to create. (This stimulation is basically money.)

SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION RESPONDS TO PRIVATE INTERESTS AND NOT TO THE GENERAL INTEREST OF HUMANITY. THAT IS WHY THEORIES ARE NOT CREATED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS