Objective science and activism are based on different goals. Objective science rewards scientists who refute previously accepted ideas with strong evidence. In objective science, the person who identifies errors or gaps in previous research—and thereby challenges the status quo—is rewarded. In the theory of Critical Rationalism, one speaks of provisionally true theories whose validity must continually be tested through falsification.11
In the activist sphere, a different goal prevails: activists often fight for a morally justified aim. This aim usually involves fixed paths and assumptions that are not meant to be questioned. Activists also vehemently defend theses that, due to the complexity of reality, either evade clear scientific falsification or have already been falsified. They often lack sufficient understanding of possible negative consequences, as their own approach is readily presented as the only solution; alternative viewpoints are frequently regarded as dangerous. Dissenters are not refuted on substantive grounds but attacked as immoral (e.g., as racists, conspiracy theorists, populists, or lobbyists). Once activism becomes influential, open debates are hindered and falsification becomes more difficult. Moralistic black-and-white thinking legitimises authoritarian attitudes.12
The question therefore arises as to how one can distinguish activism from serious science. Values such as independence, seriousness, objectivity, validity, and impartiality are also claimed by activists. The image of the activist as a loud-shouting student is misleading. In reality, there is no system of objective science that is not to some extent corrupted by activism, for every form of research is confronted with activist influence. In part, the tendency towards activism is psychologically motivated, as people prefer to have their own ideas confirmed rather than refuted.13
The strength of the activist temptation also depends on how politically relevant the research field is. Activism can furthermore be attractive as a moral offer of meaning or as a career opportunity.
Unfortunately, entire academic fields, particularly in the social sciences, are scarcely separable from politically motivated activism.14 The influence of the New Left was momentous in many academic areas (see Critical Theory).15
Certain indicators can help distinguish serious science from activist pseudoscience. One indicator is that activists attack their critics on a non-substantive level in order to establish, through non-substantive methods, a consensus that tolerates no falsification. Activists often defend theses that, on the basis of axiomatic foundations, are not meant to be questioned.
Activism is particularly dangerous when fundamental areas of society are to be transformed without the planned changes having already proven their functionality (see Utopia and Negotiations).