Where Theory Meets Practice: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Praxis
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
Karl Marx
Introduction
In the mind of the general public, the word "science" often evokes a familiar image: a figure in a lab coat, clipboard in hand, meticulously conducting experiments in a neutral and objective manner. This depiction, ingrained from an early age, reflects how science is commonly presented in grade school education — as an impartial process, free from personal beliefs, values, or political ideologies. In higher education, this perception is further solidified as students are trained to approach research with detachment, ensuring that their findings remain unbiased. The ideal scientific investigator is expected to set aside personal convictions, remain disinterested in outcomes, and let the facts speak for themselves. Under this view, science is framed as existing in a separate, insulated sphere — untainted by societal influences, politics, or values, a pure and autonomous pursuit.
During graduate school, I studied sociology and was rigorously trained in the scientific methods of statistical analysis, data collection, and research procedures. My professors emphasized the importance of conducting social scientific research with objectivity, embodying the ideal of the neutral and detached scientist. However, I found myself at odds with this approach. My interests were deeply rooted in studying ideological questions — I believed that the ultimate purpose of examining society was to understand how to transform it for the better. This perspective frequently brought me into conflict with my professors, who urged me to "check my values at the door" and strip my work of ideologically driven statements. My research was unapologetically critical of the status quo, fueled by a desire to address the pressing political questions of our time. Yet, this revolutionary stance was not well received in traditional academic settings. “You need to tone down the Marxism,” one professor admonished. The message was clear: adherence to the objective standards of mainstream social science meant setting aside any aspiration to challenge or change the system. My personal struggle, however, was not unique — it reflected a broader issue in mainstream academia: the rigid insistence on separating science from politics, which silences critical perspectives and reinforces the status quo.
In mainstream academia, science and politics are often treated as distinct and separate spheres of life. Science, it is argued, is concerned with facts, data, evidence, and the pursuit of objective truth, while politics is associated with values, beliefs, and moral judgments. This rigid separation assumes that the two should never intersect. A scientist may hold political opinions, but they are expected to express those views only in their capacity as a private citizen, not in their professional role. In the academic world, engaging in political activism is seen as fundamentally incompatible with the role of the scientist, whose primary duty is to remain neutral and detached. This dichotomy reinforces the perception that a politician or activist operates in a wholly different domain than a researcher or academic. From this perspective, scientists are mere fact-gatherers, with moral and practical implications left to the politicians and activists. This model, however, ignores the ways in which science itself is shaped by the broader social, economic, and political contexts in which it operates.
In this essay, I argue for a fundamentally different approach to science — one that rejects the illusion of objectivity promoted by mainstream academics. The claim that society should be studied through a purely neutral and unbiased lens is not only untenable but also serves to mask an implicit bias in favor of the status quo. Far from being a neutral pursuit, science in a capitalist society is conditioned by the class interests it serves. As the philosophy of praxis suggests, separating theory from practice is an artificial construct that hides the political nature of knowledge production. Rather than upholding the notion of science as a detached and value-free enterprise, I advocate for a praxis-based approach that unites theory with action. This perspective compels us to openly acknowledge the class interests embedded in science and consciously align our work with the struggles of the working class. By perpetuating the illusion of neutrality, mainstream science risks entrenching existing inequalities and failing to address the most urgent crises of our time. But with the philosophy of praxis, we can transcend the artificial division between science and politics and envision a science that serves as a tool for emancipation and social transformation. This is not merely a science of description, but one of action — a science committed to changing the world.
The Theory of “Value-Free” Science
Where does the notion of science as “value-free” originate? The sharp distinction between facts and values is a relatively recent development, emerging with the rise of capitalist modernity. In pre-modern societies, this separation was largely absent. For instance, in the classical Greek tradition rooted in Aristotle, facts carried inherent normative significance. Observations about human actions were both descriptive (what someone does) and evaluative (whether their actions align with virtues or vices). This perspective tied facts to moral and normative frameworks. However, with the advent of capitalism, the focus shifted toward a rational, means-ends calculation of economic activity, necessitating a new emphasis on science as an ostensibly value-free enterprise. The industrial revolution and the accompanying division of labor further entrenched this perspective, framing science as a specialized tool for economic production and cementing the separation of facts and values.
The concept of value-free research can be traced back to early modern science, notably to the 16th-century astronomer Galileo Galilei, who remarked that “the facts of nature remain deaf and inexorable to our wishes.” This idea was later expanded by Scottish philosopher David Hume in his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), where he introduced the “is-ought problem” into philosophy. Hume argued that ethical principles cannot be derived directly from facts about the world. In his view, a moral judgment about how things ought to be cannot logically follow from a factual statement about how things are. For instance, while it is a fact that capitalism relies on the exploitation of the working class, this fact alone cannot justify the normative conclusion that exploitation is unjust or that capitalism must be abolished. Such conclusions, according to Hume, require additional normative premises.
The early 20th-century sociologist Max Weber built upon Hume’s ideas and applied them to social science research. In his lectures and essays, Weber presented science as a method for explaining facts and solving technical problems, rejecting the notion that it could address ultimate moral questions. In contrast to the revolutionary aims of Marxist theory, Weber promoted the “limited tasks and modest usefulness of the social sciences.” He coined the terms “value-free” and “value-neutrality” to emphasize that sociology must maintain a strict separation from politics. For Weber, researchers were obligated to set aside their ideological preferences, personal values, and biases as much as possible to ensure impartiality. This approach gained widespread acceptance among Western sociologists throughout the 20th century, particularly during the Cold War. The framing of Weber’s value-free sociology as neutral served the political imperatives of Cold War anti-communism, positioning bourgeois sociology as a counter to the allegedly biased theories of Marxism-Leninism.
The flaws, logical contradictions, and pro-capitalist biases embedded in the value-free approach to science warrant closer examination. While proponents of value-free science claim that it ensures neutrality and objectivity, this framework often serves to obscure the political and ideological interests that shape scientific research under capitalism. By presenting itself as apolitical, value-free science naturalizes the inequalities and injustices of the status quo, effectively reinforcing the interests of the ruling class. Furthermore, its emphasis on separating facts from values not only creates a false dichotomy but also limits the potential of science to address the great social questions of our time. In the following section, these inherent contradictions will be critically analyzed, alongside an exploration of how this approach has been mobilized to marginalize revolutionary perspectives and maintain capitalist hegemony.
The Class Character of Scientific Research
The efforts of Weber and other bourgeois philosophers to portray science as a value-free or value-neutral enterprise overlook a fundamental reality: science, like all social institutions, is deeply intertwined with the material relations of the society in which it exists. Science does not develop in a vacuum; its trajectory is shaped by the prevailing economic conditions and social relations of its time. While the relationship between science and society is complex and has evolved over centuries, it is under capitalist modernity that science has emerged as the dominant form of knowledge. This embeddedness manifests in several key ways: the historical development of science within specific modes of production; the class position of scientists as workers under capitalism; the reliance of scientific research on capitalist funding; the use of scientific discoveries to drive capital accumulation; and the ideological role of science in legitimizing the status quo. Each of these dimensions will be explored in the sections that follow.
The Historical Development of Science
At its core, science involves the use of human senses to gather empirical information about the material world and test assumptions. In its most rudimentary form, science existed in prehistoric times as a practical tool for early humans to shape their environment and facilitate tool-making (Engels [1876] 1953). Unlike other animals, whose survival depended largely on instinct, humans are distinguished by their ability to consciously transform their natural surroundings to meet their needs and desires. As Marx and Engels explain in The German Ideology:
"The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation."
In premodern societies, science remained in an embryonic form, lacking the specialization that characterizes its modern incarnation. It was not until the rise of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution that science became a distinct institution of specialized knowledge production. This transformation marked a turning point, as science was harnessed to drive technological innovation and advance the productive forces.
Marx captured this pivotal development in Capital, Volume 1, where he observed:
"The steam-engine, the spinning machine, the self-acting mule, the power-loom, the chemical industry, and the application of science generally to production, developed at an extraordinary pace in the closing third of the 18th century and the opening third of the 19th century."
This shift marked the integration of science into the capitalist mode of production, driving an unprecedented expansion in the forces of production. The Industrial Revolution exemplified this transformation, as innovations like the steam engine and mechanized looms revolutionized productivity, enabling mass production on an unparalleled scale. Science and technology became indispensable tools for improving efficiency, reducing labor costs, and creating new industries such as railroads and steel manufacturing. However, this progress came at a cost: it deepened worker alienation, intensified social inequalities, and tied scientific advancement to the imperatives of capital accumulation, transforming science into a key instrument of capitalist expansion. This alienation extends beyond the factory floor to include scientists themselves, whose intellectual labor is similarly subsumed under capitalist dynamics.
Under capitalism, scientists experience a profound alienation from the products of their intellectual labor. Their discoveries and innovations, often developed with the intention of advancing knowledge or improving human well-being, are commodified and controlled by corporations or state institutions. As a result, scientists frequently lack agency over how their work is applied or who benefits from it. For example, technologies initially developed for civilian use may be repurposed for military applications, contributing to warfare and destruction, or for profit-driven ventures that exacerbate environmental degradation. This alienation reflects a broader dynamic of capitalism, where the fruits of labor—whether manual or intellectual—are appropriated and used to serve the interests of capital rather than the common good.
Science as a Tool of Capital Accumulation
Under capitalism, the ruling class controls the means of scientific production, shaping its direction and application to serve the imperatives of capital accumulation. Laboratories, universities, patents, and intellectual property are dominated by corporate and state interests, ensuring that scientific research aligns with the priorities of those who hold economic power. Funding for research is primarily provided by large corporations, technology firms, and government entities, including military institutions, which ties the production of scientific knowledge to capitalist goals. This arrangement undermines the notion of science as a value-neutral pursuit, revealing its embeddedness within the structures of capitalism. Rather than addressing the needs of humanity, scientific inquiry is often directed toward projects that maximize profit for the capitalist class.
Pharmaceutical research offers a striking example of how science is subordinated to profitability. Drug development is frequently driven by market demand rather than by the urgency of global health crises. Companies prioritize lifestyle drugs for affluent consumers, such as treatments for hair loss or erectile dysfunction, while neglecting diseases that disproportionately affect impoverished populations in the Global South. Similarly, substantial funding is allocated to the development of weapons of war and mass destruction, serving the interests of defense contractors and militarized state agendas. These priorities reflect the capitalist imperative to prioritize profit over the common good, diverting scientific resources away from projects that could meaningfully improve the human condition.
Science under capitalism also plays a critical role in enhancing productivity and extracting surplus value. The integration of scientific advancements into manufacturing processes—such as the assembly line, industrial robotics, and automated systems—has revolutionized production. These innovations allow capitalists to intensify the productivity of labor while reducing costs, thereby increasing profitability. For example, automation reduces the reliance on human workers, minimizing wages while maintaining or even expanding output. Although these technological developments increase efficiency, they often exacerbate inequality by displacing workers and concentrating wealth in the hands of the capitalist class.
Ultimately, science in a capitalist society is not a neutral endeavor but a key instrument for the accumulation of capital. Its direction is shaped by the economic interests of the ruling class, prioritizing profitability over addressing pressing societal needs. By aligning scientific inquiry with the imperatives of profit, capitalism transforms science into a tool for maintaining and expanding its dominance, rather than a force for collective human progress.
Science and Ideological legitimation
In addition to its role in capital accumulation, science under capitalism serves as an ideological tool, legitimizing and perpetuating the status quo. By framing capitalist social relations as natural, inevitable, or meritocratic, scientific discourse often reinforces the economic and political structures of capitalist society. This use of science masks the systemic inequalities inherent in capitalism, presenting them as the logical outcomes of individual behavior or market forces rather than as products of exploitative social relations.
Economic theories such as "rational choice theory" or "human capital theory" exemplify how science is employed to uphold capitalist ideology. These frameworks are often presented as objective and scientific analyses of human behavior and market dynamics. However, they implicitly validate the structures of capitalism by justifying inequality as the result of individual choices or variations in skill and productivity. By doing so, they obscure the role of systemic exploitation and class relations in creating and sustaining economic disparities, reinforcing the notion that capitalism is a fair and efficient system.
Science also functions as a critical tool of state and military power, aligning with the interests of the ruling class on a global scale. In capitalist societies, scientific advancements are frequently directed toward the development of military technologies and surveillance systems, demonstrating the subordination of scientific inquiry to imperialist agendas. The Manhattan Project, which led to the creation of nuclear weapons, is a striking example of how science has been co-opted to serve state power and perpetuate dominance. Such projects highlight the ways in which science is not merely a neutral pursuit of knowledge but a mechanism for consolidating power and advancing the geopolitical and economic interests of the capitalist class.
Through its ideological function, science under capitalism both legitimizes inequality and supports systems of domination. By presenting capitalist social relations as scientific truths and aligning with state power, science perpetuates the illusion of neutrality while serving as a tool for maintaining the current order. In this way, it becomes not only a means of production but also a means of control, ensuring that challenges to capitalist hegemony remain marginalized.
The Philosophy of Praxis
The concept of value-free science, championed by Weber and others, is not only empirically flawed but also serves as an ideological shield for a science that perpetuates capitalist domination. This framework disguises the deeply rooted connection between science and social values, portraying it as neutral and detached while reinforcing the economic and political interests of the ruling class. In stark contrast, the philosophy of praxis offers a revolutionary alternative that aligns science with the goals of socialism. Praxis, rooted in Marx’s famous assertion that “philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it,” emphasizes the inseparable unity of theory and action, rejecting the artificial division between facts and values.
Praxis, originally an ancient Greek term for purposeful action, was redefined and expanded by Marx and Engels to encompass both the social and natural sciences. It is the dialectical integration of theoretical understanding with practical activity—the study of the world as a means to transform it. Unlike the value-free conception of science, which isolates research from its social consequences, praxis explicitly acknowledges the interdependence of study and action. Revolutionary leaders such as Lenin and Mao Tse-tung stressed this unity, with Lenin famously declaring, “Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement,” and Mao asserting, “Knowledge begins with practice, and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice.” Praxis transforms science into a tool of liberation, where understanding the world is inherently tied to the goal of changing it.
The philosophy of praxis also fundamentally rejects David Hume’s is-ought problem, which posits that moral values cannot be derived from factual observations. From a dialectical materialist perspective, this distinction is untenable, as facts and values are deeply intertwined. Even contemporary advances in quantum physics demonstrate that the act of observation alters the observed phenomenon, revealing the active role of the observer in shaping reality. This scientific insight supports the philosophical principle that study and action, theory and practice, facts and values, are inherently linked. The very choice of what to study and how to apply knowledge reflects the values of the society in which science is embedded.
Marxism, as a scientific socialism, embodies the philosophy of praxis, uniting theory with practice to advance the interests of the oppressed. Unlike Weber’s conception of science, which masks its class character, Marxism recognizes that true objectivity demands acknowledging the social and economic structures that shape knowledge. This means choosing a side: aligning science with the struggles of the exploited and using it as a tool for emancipation. Scientific socialism does not merely seek to understand the world but to transform it, making science a force for justice, equality, and collective liberation.
Conclusion
This essay has challenged the notion of science as a value-free and neutral enterprise, arguing instead that science is deeply embedded in the social, economic, and political structures of society. Far from being an impartial pursuit, science under capitalism serves the interests of the ruling class by legitimizing inequality, advancing systems of exploitation, and aligning with the imperatives of capital accumulation. By tracing the historical development of science, examining its role in capitalist production, and critiquing its ideological functions, this analysis reveals that the claim of objectivity in mainstream science masks the ways in which it perpetuates and reinforces the capitalist status quo.
In contrast to this reactionary vision of science, the philosophy of praxis offers a transformative alternative that unites theory with action, facts with values, and study with practice. Grounded in Marxist thought, praxis rejects the artificial separation between observation and intervention, insisting that true scientific inquiry is inherently tied to the goal of changing the world. By aligning science with the struggles of the oppressed and the exploited, the philosophy of praxis envisions a science that serves the collective good rather than private profit—a science for emancipation rather than domination.
Ultimately, this essay calls for a reimagining of science as a tool for liberation. A truly revolutionary science must abandon the illusion of neutrality and consciously choose to side with the oppressed. By embracing the philosophy of praxis, we can transform science from an instrument of exploitation into a force for justice, equality, and human progress. This is not merely a theoretical aspiration but a practical necessity in the ongoing struggle to create a more just and equitable world.
