I address all critiques of my writings, as you can tell from my responses to the comments on my articles. The evidence for the institutional connection between scientific knowledge and the domestication of nature is absolutely everywhere. I don't like stating the obvious.

The problem is that you're strawmanning my view. I don't say scientific methods are necessarily destructive. "Objectification" I define pejoratively, but the argument isn't that scientists or those looking for knowledge of natural facts must engage in that stance. We're talking about a progressive tradition, though, that exploits the anthropocentric role of human reason. So there are probabilities here, but not necessities. Conceivably, we could think of natural facts in less objectifying ways.

The question is what's supposed to follow from a model of the facts. Can you use that model in constructive ways? It's like having a blueprint or a recipe. That essential information gives you power over the thing or it allows you to recreate or to re-engineer it, but you needn't use that power. The control is a potential that needn't be actualized.

Still, the destructive potential is inherent in the knowledge.

Moreover, it's hard to define "knowledge" without referring to that pragmatic aspect or to the potential social power you get from understanding something with conceptions, theories, and other models. We think of that power constructively, of course, since we want to improve things, not make them worse. And I'm just observing that we tend to deceive ourselves in that respect.