En este artículo se hace una reflexión sobre el pésimo hábito que en general existe (incluyendo el medio universitario) de usar la palabra "ciencia" como si ésta fuera sinónimo de "teoría general de cualquier cosa", dejando de ver que ciencia es una teoría especial, específica y que no permite que confundan los gatos con las liebres (¡sí, con las liebres sesgadas ideológicamente!").
This article reflects on the terrible habit that generally exists (including the university environment) of using the word "science" as if it were synonymous with "general theory of anything", failing to see that science is a theory special, specific and that does not allow cats to be confused with hares (yes, ideologically biased hares! ").
It happens that in the use of language, what they call "ideological smuggling" not only happens from time to time but with enormous assiduity. The biases that mark ideologies in language (and, of course, in its users) are much more than eventual; rather, they are a habitat with a vocation to endure.
A subject so serious and so -somehow- far removed from the aforementioned ideological and linguistic manipulations, like science, does not emerge unscathed from the aforementioned actions. Too often we see how this significant word is commonly used, precisely to dirty the unique richness that it embodies; that is to say, objectivity (honors reality), and validity (honors the rational, honors the logical, honors the correct ordering of ideas and signs).
Perhaps it is not worth bringing up here in detail, references that, to put it simply, "fall under their own weight" given their primitivism ... We refer to those cases in which reference is made (without virtue) to nonsense like: "occult science", "science of the absurd", "science fiction", and so on.
But without a doubt that within the harmful uses to everything that science embodies, there is a special one. Special for the scoundrel, of course. It lies in assigning flat and thick to the signifier "science", the motley meaning that the word "theory" embodies. The theory is the work that in exclusive terms the human being does, not only to reproduce objective reality by means of thought and symbolization, but to recreate it using art, technology and other expressions. The theory, thus, not only includes science, but also the giant wealth of speculation (reflection, brooding) both in its transhistorically recognized manifestations as "prestigious" (in the case of philosophy), and in its "crude" manifestations. "popular", "vulgar" (this is the case of ideologies, of popular cultures, in short).
One cannot call "science" "theory in general", thus failing to establish the elementary border that separates the first (as knowledge-sign with a high degree of objectivity and validity), and the second (as knowledge- sign legitimately permeable to be subject to, as Karel Kosík would say (1), "a zigzag between truth and deception").
When talking about science, reference should be made to that theory that has provisionally and historically proven its condition of explaining reality, and that has managed -also provisionally and historically- to move cleanly through a correct logic. Correct in analytical, Aristotelian terms (2), or correct in dialectical terms (3). When talking about science, it must be clear that philosophies or ideologies are not being alluded linearly and uncritically; not because they necessarily constitute the radical opposite to what is their essential disciplinary condition and in this sense they carry falsehoods, but because they are different things. They are different things, although between one (science) and others (philosophies and ideologies), there may be all kinds of communicating vessels)! The greatest danger in all this is that the flattening (egalitarianism) that we have characterized offers a kind of green light for ideological smuggling to actually take place. Yes. We reiterate ... The greatest danger of all this is that putting science and theory in the same generalist and flat bag, constitutes a permission for the specifically scientific (with the objectivity and validity that it embodies) to be blurred in the chiaroscuro of the philosophical and ideological (with the dangers that this entails, of bearing biases).
HERE ARE SOME CASES IN WHICH THE MISUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT "SCIENCE" IS OSTENSIBLE (AND WHICH PARADOXICALLY HAPPENS IN MORE THAN ONE UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD ...)
A) Education as an object of study, carries with it scientific factors, philosophical factors and ideological factors. Good. This being the case, it is not coherent that there are postgraduate courses and instances that institutionally display their academic bills as "educational sciences." Instead of "educational sciences", they should be called educational theories ...
B) It is common to see that within the literature that graduate studies publicly exhibit through brochures and online expressions, persistent reference is made to such "scientific articles". Good; If the subject in which such expression is used is of a scientific or technological nature (such as a master's degree in mathematics, a doctorate in pharmacology, a specialty in micro-biology, in short), then there would be no inconsistency; but if it is about academic cases other than science or technology (example ... a master of art, a doctorate in culture (4), in short), talking about "scientific articles" would be a giant nonsense. Take into account that today, when referring to the thematic areas of intellectual production (in light of advanced criteria of legal policies in this regard), three large fields are established: science, technology and humanities. To circumscribe "science" to the subject, leaving out the technological and the humanistic, is a reflection that in cultural politics we are in the stone age. Instead of speaking of "scientific articles", then it is appropriate to speak of academic articles.
C) Stupor was what we felt when we recently saw in a brochure referring to "university study opportunities" that the ministry of education of a country X, put at the disposal of the bachelors who just graduated, and then specific reference was made to a career that led to training Catholic priests, evangelical pastors, and the like. Well ... the point is that we read in the aforementioned brochure, that there was talk of "religious sciences". No (additional) comments!
(2) That is, when thought is ordered on the principle that a thing is identical to itself and can never be - at the same time and circumstance - itself and its opposite.
(3) That is, when thought is ordered on the principle that everything carries within itself, a tendency to continue being as it is, and another, to be transfigured into its opposite; tracing in all this an inevitable action of movement, of change.
(4) By the way ... Our last experiential experience as a postgraduate teacher, we had it in the Doctorate in Latin American and Caribbean Culture, which is carried out at the Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador (in the Venezuelan city of Barquisimeto.
FUENTE DE LAS IMÁGENES: / SOURCE OF IMAGES: