As in most books of "Kritische Theorie" the basal argument is: Science happens in capitalism, therefore as a whole facilitates capitalism. The essays were written by historians and philosophers - and it shows. For example, "Sensual fullness and spiritual potency are corrupted and amputated by data." They don't try to prove their point in cases like quantum physics or neuroscience, which tells. They don't mention AI in a book which was published 2022!

A few essays treat empiric questions, for example does electromagnetic radiation harm, are vaccinations helpful? But in such a one-sided and shallow way! There is no weighing in evidence. A text about psychoneuroimmunology claims, that the ibuprofen was a main driver in the covid pandemic by shutting down sickness behaviour - without any attempt to prove this claim. The feminist critique of science is good, but more historical. The essays don't try to distinguish science, scientifc method or science communication. Invoking science to lend more authority to one's own weak argument is not, after all, a problem with science per se. One essay claims that the most emancipatory sciences are psychoanalysis and marxism! (for real: p216) The book is full of contempt of the people whose intelectual rising was in the German Marxist 60 and 70ies. Summary: Science reduces us to numbers, can only be instrumental and therefore in capitalism capitalistic, objeticifies and therefore dominates nature and women, furthermore is a religion in the sense of Walter Benjamin's capitalism is a religion.

The last essay was a interview, which portrays the publisher's attitude: But how do you see the extreme orientation towards mathematizable knowledge, especially in the pandemic, but also in the climate discourse? Isn't the reduction of scientific knowledge to incidences and limits (I remember that after the Paris climate conference, the now widely supported 2-degree target was strongly criticized from the left, not least because of its immanent mathematization of social natural relations) at least as dangerous? [The "at least as" refers to the danger of making facts negotiable). "I am not against mathematizable knowledge. To speak with Adorno: Critical theory is more positivist than positivism.""

Not to say there is a lot of trouble in sciences in a authoritarian conformist society, but this book does not help in discover it. I learned more reading Science as Radicalism ( humaniterations.net/2015/08/18/science-as-radicalism/ )

Two stars: The feminist critique essays saved the book of utter destruction.