Science presents itself with a remarkable claim.
that it produces meaning purified of value.
1. The inheritance of purity
Where religion fused meaning and value, science appears to separate them.
- religion: meaning grounds value
- science: meaning is independent of value
On this view:
- scientific knowledge represents the world as it is
- values enter only afterward—ethics, application, policy
This is the myth.
2. Meaning is never neutral
From the perspective already established, scientific knowledge is not:
- a mirror of reality
- a transparent representation
- a passive recording of what is “out there”
It is semiotic construal.
- models are constructed
- distinctions are drawn
- phenomena are actualised under specific conditions
There is no access to an unconstrued world.
Only different ways of bringing phenomena forth.
This is not a limitation.
It is the condition of meaning itself.
3. The disavowal of value
At the same time, science insists—often implicitly—that:
- its procedures are neutral
- its standards are objective
- its practices are governed by reason alone
Value is displaced:
- into ethics committees
- into funding decisions
- into “external” social considerations
What remains, supposedly, is pure meaning.
But this separation does not hold.
Because what appears as neutral procedure is already:
structured coordination.
4. Practice as coordination
Consider the mundane realities of scientific work:
- experimental protocols
- peer review
- replication standards
- citation practices
- disciplinary boundaries
These are not meanings.
They are patterns of coordinated action:
- who can speak
- what counts as evidence
- how results must be produced
- when claims are accepted or rejected
They stabilise expectation.
They regulate participation.
They enforce alignment.
In other words:
they are value systems.
5. The illusion of separation
So we have:
- semiotic construal (models, theories, descriptions)
- value coordination (protocols, norms, institutions)
And once again:
no shared ground.
Yet science appears uniquely capable of keeping them apart.
Why?
Because the coupling is:
- tightly regulated
- highly institutionalised
- constantly reinforced
And crucially:
systematically denied.
6. Purity as misrecognition
The claim of purity is not a property of science.
It is a misrecognition of the coupling.
- coordination is redescribed as method
- constraint is redescribed as logic
- alignment is redescribed as objectivity
7. The work of maintenance
This misrecognition does not sustain itself automatically.
It requires continuous labour:
- training scientists to see method, not coordination
- framing disagreement as error, not misalignment
- excluding alternative articulations as “unscientific”
Institutions play a central role:
8. When purity cracks
As with religion, the structure becomes visible under strain:
- persistent disagreement between fields
- shifting standards of evidence
- controversies that cannot be resolved by data alone
- replication crises
These are often treated as failures.
But they are better understood as:
moments when the coupling can no longer sustain the illusion of separation.
9. Not a critique of science
At this point, a familiar defensive reaction appears:
“Are you saying science is just politics? Just belief? Just power?”
No.
This would repeat the very reduction we have already rejected.
Science is not reducible to value.
Just as religion is not reducible to meaning.
The claim is sharper:
science, like religion, is a coupled system without ground, misrecognised as unified—in this case, as pure meaning.
10. The inversion
Religion says:
meaning and value are one.
Science says:
meaning is free of value.
Both are structurally impossible.
What exists in both cases is:
- semiotic construal
- value coordination
- their coupling
- their misrecognition
Only the narrative differs.
11. The consequence
Once the myth of purity is withdrawn, science does not collapse.
It becomes visible.
- models are seen as construals
- practices as coordination
- objectivity as stabilised relation
Not weakened.
But clarified.
12. The next step
With purity removed, a more precise question emerges:
If scientific meaning is not neutral representation,what kind of construal is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment