How has language, particularly around the unquestionable authority of 'science' (vs. other domains of inquiry that apply rigorous method but are not generally considered 'science') been used to uphold the military industrial complex and other forms of hegemonic rule by global hyper-elites (the top 0.2% of individuals by personal assets)?
A review of public discourse in periods of great turmoil, such as COVID and the rise of NAZI Germany and possible the periods following The French Revolution are places to understand this dynamic. For example, newspapers, online articles, radio, television and public announcement campaigns around particular government policies, election campaigns, or services by private companies.
This is a complex question that incorporates linguistics theory, political science, sociological research methods that are able to scan databases and the internet for appropriate search terms.
To properly answer the question both philosophical models how power operates in the society, Michel Foucault, Manuel Castello and Noam Chomsky are three thinkers with a range of relevant theories along with data-driven approaches to under the true extent to messaging to individual eyes and ears through a broad range of methods of public discourse.
Yes Dale Hembrow language (rhetoric) is used to uphold the authority of science and dominance of hyper-elites, but also of religious doctrines.
Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.
Plato
Stephen I. Ternyik Great point, regarding religious doctrines. I don't think these two things are disconnected. Nietzsche was right when he said, God is dead and we have killed him; but he did not eradicated the control of the hyper-elites, in fact he endorsed 'the world as a will to power.'
And mechanisms of control moved from the Monarchy-Church axis to the power structures upheld by modernity, liberal-democracy, the doctrines that emerged out of the Washington Consensus that still dominate today in global governance structures such as the UN, World Bank and that ecosystem.
I see you are pitting science vs. religion. A classic term, but control by the elites is nothing new; and in my experience they elites tend to be quite spiritual but not religions, devoutly religious in traditional Chistian practises (catholic, protestant and othordox) and a mix of other syncretic practises. Just look at Tom Cruise and his Scientology.
Socrates, Plato's mentor was a deeply spiritual man and discussed faith nd God at length; especially in the taking poison (hemlock) as the test of his faith in God.
But to clarify my point, I put 'science' in quotations because I don't believe the use of rhetoric I am sharing is science or scientific at all. Science is based on a. method, it is not a domain or a field. There may be fields that are known as science, but it doesn't not make them scientific in method, and when data is presented from scientific fields in unscientific ways they no longer are scientific.
So if Nietzsche's ethics is alright and rhetoric is the art of the ruling of men; in order to asserts one's power and individual virility into world through abusing the notion of science. Are we ok with that?
Western academic and philosophy has become important against the problems in the world, apart from perhaps the field of sociology which is beginning to measure and truly question the problems of the world today, largely driven by the work of Anthony Gidden, Pierre Boordieu. Michel Foucault and others. But here we have continental and anglo traditions actually working together.
The Western Intellectual world has largely become important, because the modern project has built extraordinary power to build things and appear like it can stabilise the economy with laissez faire economics and post depression economic models.
The only other realm discipline I've seen with any hope is actually theology, and it's emerging interdisplinarity. That is the key, interdisciplinary; but the academic institution oppose it like the plague. PhDs get more and more specialised every year and no-one seems to be opposing. Every domain of knowledge has different definitions of the same words and no-one known what each other is saying.
And we wonder why no-one is interested in the liberal arts in the West?
Yes Dale Hembrow the academic assembly line is contra-polar to liberal arts education; am in agreement with your observation that theology and interdisciplinary still have great future potential, in terms of building discourse communities.
The value of language is judged by real life experience, so real power of rhetoric is emprical, indeed.