〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

Heard something interesting today: “that science succeeds in selling itself as apolitical takes part in making it political.”

that doesn't make much sense, unless i'm missing a certain drift

An expansion would be something like “science enters into politics with an apolitical appearance, and that it (falsely) advertises itself as such contributes to the content of its politics.” So, for example, you might interpret the NIH as some impartial epistemic authority...

from which politicians can draw—something that doesn’t itself partake in politics, but is external to it. Of course everyone at the NIH knows that isn’t the case, and the perceived apolitical-ness makes some interesting things possible