Science as Democratizer
Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Does the pursuit of pure science make sense in a world of scarcity and
strife? With so much poverty on the planet, why spend vast sums of money
on, say, the James Webb Space Telescope, due to replace the Hubble at
the end of the decade and observe the first stars and galaxies in the
universe; or the Terrestrial Planet Finder, whose mission is to detect
other habitable worlds-discoveries that, however astounding, can bring
no tangible benefits here on this barely habitable world called Earth?
I'd prefer to argue that pure science needs no extrinsic
justification-that to seek knowledge for its own sake is among the
grandest of species-affirming human endeavors. Unfortunately, beyond a
rarefied community of professionals and enthusiasts, such a view can
seem self-indulgent and elitist, possibly irresponsible, and can even
generate ill will among those who, by choice or necessity, have other
priorities.
The usual rationale for spending public monies on scientific projects
large and small is that they have the potential to make our lives
longer, healthier, safer, happier, more productive, more pleasant. That
science, even "pure" science, can strengthen democracy and promote
public participation in the political process, both in the United States
and throughout the world, is hardly ever mentioned. It should be.
Scientific literacy energizes democracy, I suggest, and this is an
important ancillary benefit of the promotion of science. Can this
proposition be defended? I'd like to try.
I'll start with an observation. In general, countries that have stronger
sciences have stronger democracies. And in countries where science has
little strength and scientific ways of thinking have no apparent impact,
governments tend to range from undemocratic to totalitarian. This is
quite obviously correlation, not cause-and even if cause, the direction
of the causation arrow is unclear. A democratic country might foster
science, perhaps as a second-order effect of the prosperity and high
literacy conventionally coincident with democracy, just as logically as
a scientific country might foster democracy.
A lack of even rudimentary scientific understanding cuts great swaths
across the planet's population and thereby threatens the global
community by exacerbating inequalities and fomenting resentment. The
rewards of science are distributed unevenly, straining social relations
within the United States and widening the gulf between developed and
developing nations. Knowledge is power, and whenever segments of a
society, or entire countries, are separated from it, disenfranchisement
and disaffection are often the result.
Just as advanced science and technology have begun to flourish in almost
every corner of the world, antiscience currents are flowing faster,
too-fed by a curious confluence of individual alienation, religious
fundamentalism, extreme environmentalism and even elements of postmodern
scholarship, with its tendency to view scientific research as affected
by cultural bias. One sees close ties between the absence of scientific
appreciation and the presence of demagogic intolerance-but even so, this
is still correlation, not cause.
Critical Thinking and Democracy
How might science engender democracy? I'd like to suggest two
mechanisms: first, by changing the way people think; second, by altering
the interaction among those who make up the community. The more
scientifically literate people become, the more they will expect, even
demand to participate in the political process, and the more effective
they will be at it. Such social evolution may be slow, nonlinear and
chaotic, and periodically may even reverse course, but it is probably
also inexorable, as the recent history of the former Soviet Union and
other Communist countries in Europe shows.
A key to changing the way people think is "critical thinking," the
ability to draw logical conclusions, or (more often, in the messy world
of social issues) the reverse-to discern gaps in logic, to detect broken
conceptual links in the causative chain of, say, campaign promises.
Science amplifies our power of discernment; the scientific way of
thinking enables us to assess whether facts fit theories, or, in the
political arena, whether actual circumstances support proffered
positions. Critical thinking is the essence of the scientific method.
Knowing the difference between assumption and deduction, and between
presumption and proof, can alter one's outlook and transform an
electorate. The cognitive skill to distinguish among hope, faith,
possibility, probability and certitude are potent weapons in anyone's
political survival kit and can be applied in all areas of life and
society.
A key to altering the interaction among the members of the community is
to see science as a potential unifier. I am moderator of a Public
Broadcasting Service series called Closer to Truth: Science, Meaning and
the Future, on which scientists debate fundamental issues. Those of us
involved with the series have been surprised by the diversity of our
viewership. E-mail audience feedback cuts across educational levels,
gender, age, race, class and creed-the only common denominator being a
keen interest in topics such as consciousness, cosmology and scientific
creativity. This evidence suggests a vision of a diverse society in
which many value a scientific way of thinking. Such a society has the
capacity to respect pluralistic political positions-the essence of
democracy-since members can understand that no position, not even their
own, can be "proved" to be the correct one with anywhere near absolute
certainty. In fact, given the gaps, even chasms, in contemporary
political views (within countries as well as between them) the common
language of science seems the only force able to provide common ground.
click for full image and caption
Consider China, conflicted by the tension between promoting science and
restraining Western-style democracy. Even given the nation's remarkable
development since the advent of reform 25 years ago, education is still
limited, and therefore, Chinese leaders believe, so must be competitive
elections. China's governing elite, which at the top consists almost
entirely of science-trained engineers, do not want uneducated,
scientifically naive peasants determining national policies, including
the allocation of resources. (One senior advisor asked, rhetorically,
Would illiterate farmers vote for the information superhighway?)
Measures that would be unquestionably beneficial to China in the long
run might not be especially popular in the short run. It is commonly
held in China that democracy, a stated goal, can develop only to the
extent that education, primarily scientific education, increases.
"Revitalizing China through science and education" is a favorite slogan
of former President Jiang Zemin, who was equally adamant in promoting
science and opposing Western-style democracy, and his policy is being
pursued by his successors. It will be fascinating to see whether and how
democracy grows with scientific literacy.
In Muslim countries, which for centuries led the world in science, there
is an incipient movement to encourage science as consistent with Islam.
One devout scientist, a leader in the "Islam and science" movement,
believes that teaching science in the religious schools (madrassas) is
essential for instituting change.
Admittedly, so far I have only anecdotal observation in support of my
thesis that scientific literacy is a natural precursor to political
democracy. But it is testable. I envision a simple scatter diagram in
which a country's level of scientific literacy (on the x-axis) is
plotted against its degree of political democracy.
My guess is that the clustering of the data for the 192-odd countries of
the world would be bimodal, with one grouping coherent and the other
dispersed. Bunched in the upper right would be the known group of
countries combining high science literacy and robust democracy. I expect
that the other, dispersed grouping would be spread widely over the
entire left and middle regions of the graph, since a larger number of
countries have varying degrees of low- to mid-level science and low- to
mid-level democracy, with weak correlations between them.
A better test of the thesis, though still unlikely to resolve the
correlation-causation conundrum, would probably be longitudinal,
tracking the changes of each data point over time as countries migrate
in their science and in their governance.
If we followed countries over decades, as they made the (often
protracted) journey from lower left to upper right on the graph, from
low science-low democracy to high science-high democracy, we would ask:
What are the paths of progress? I'd predict that there would be many
routes. Some would appear linear, with proportional growth in science
and democracy; others geometrical or sigmoidal, as affected by the
forces of history: social turmoil, cultural subtleties and external
forces.
The Momentum of Science
There are counterexamples to the science-democracy conjecture. It fails
to explain the accomplishments of Nazi and Soviet science, which
flourished in societies that were among the least democratic. Scientific
discovery can be driven by psychological factors, such as creativity
under coercion, self-protective and ego, and collective sociology, such
as mass hysteria and national chauvinism. I would offer that the
sprouting of a democracy-championing individual such as Andrei Sakharov,
the highly decorated father of Soviet thermonuclear weapons, is likely
in a science-rich totalitarian society and virtually inevitable in an
age when access to the Internet is essential for doing good science.
This is the dilemma faced by the leaders of China, who are motivated
mightily by pride in China's development. They have before them two
roads for national advancement: Open access to the Internet and
accelerate indigenous science, while allowing potentially destabilizing
elements to enter society; or restrict access to maximize stability
(needed, they believe, for uninterrupted development), thereby
handicapping Chinese science in an unforgiving, hypercompetitive, global
market that is fueled by new knowledge and is exquisitely sensitive to
time.
Some might argue that imposing "science" as the highest standard of
human thinking undervalues other areas of thought and artificially
"privileges" one form of "knowing" over others. Science can in fact be
differentiated from other forms of discernment, because its primary
power to influence sociopolitical development is more content-neutral, a
"way of thinking" rather than a collection of fields and facts.
Admitting where intuition outruns analysis-not easily done-should be the
hallmark of rational assessment of political trade-offs, historical
controversies, moral codes, the reality of religion, the meaning of art
and the like.
The primary point is that a proper understanding of the scientific way
of thinking compels one to recognize where alleged proofs break down or
are downright impossible to construct. This does not a priori obviate
awareness or appreciation of a different kind of knowledge or "truth,"
but comprehending the distinction between proof and opinion should tend
to make people more tolerant of the differing opinions of others.
Certainly, humanistic understanding is complementary to the scientific
for effecting political change, but primarily because it too engenders
respect for the pluralism engendered by critical thinking. When citizens
can distinguish among proof, likelihood, opinion and hope-and get into
the habit of so doing-democracy cannot long be kept from them. Of
course, a democracy in full flower cherishes and protects political,
intellectual and religious freedoms, artistic expression and literary
inquiry.
The Spirit of Science
A fully democratic political system gives all its citizens the right to
choose their leaders and representatives; the reciprocal responsibility,
implicit in the social contract, is that citizens exercise their
franchise with dedication and discernment. Democracy works successfully
only when participants are informed and able to make independent
judgments. The degree to which they can be swayed by demagogues,
influenced by parochial interests, incited by jingoism, or inflamed by
ethnic or religious chauvinism is the degree to which democracy does not
work.
Challenging current beliefs in various fields of science with a
noncynical skepticism creates a healthy mindset for a democratic and
tolerant society. On Closer to Truth, we attempt to empower the public
to participate in debates about current research on the frontiers of
science and its philosophical and social implications. When opposing
positions are presented on, say, the nature of consciousness, we
encourage all sides-and there are more than two sides to this and other
fractious issues-to present supporting data or to admit where they are
blurring the boundaries between personal opinion and accepted proof.
The scientific spirit is common to all peoples; it crosses cultures and
bonds diverse elements of society, communicating an appreciation of the
beauty as well as the benefits of new discoveries, the breathtaking
complexity of our vast universe. Science opens the mind. Such are the
intangible benefits of the Webb and Hubble telescopes and their like.
About those costly telescopes: I believe basic and applied science and
science education are all needed to nourish critical thinking. Science,
to be science, cannot stagnate. If scientific education enforces the
scientific way of thinking, scientific discovery energizes it, so that
both education and discovery nourish and sustain our democracy. And
science needs democracy as much as democracy needs science. Vigorous
scientific research reflects democratic principles in action, and free
and open scientific inquiry cannot take place without the protective
support of a robust democracy.
This is not a time to be timorous. With the state of the world as it is,
critical decisions must often be based on incomplete data, and it seems
to me that the science-democracy link is strong enough to merit action.
Taken seriously, support of scientific literacy and research in the
developing world could become America's most efficient use of foreign
aid. By increasing the scientific spirit in the world, we would be
catalyzing a converging way of thinking.
http://www.closertot...icipants/rkuhn/
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is the creator and host of the PBS television series Closer To Truth: Science, Meaning and the Future (www.pbs.org/closertotruth), the author or editor of numerous books, and a managing director at Smith Barney/Citigroup. He holds a Ph.D. in anatomy/brain research from the University of California, Los Angeles. Address: 5 Park Plaza, 20th Floor, Irvine, CA 92614. Internet: rlkuhn@earthlink.net
By this author
