Science - furthermore ,is not a platonic entity. It really exists and has existed via real human beings, men and women. If science has lost its liberating power then that means that dozens and more of scientists have even up - and surrounded, eventually.

My own real, empirical experience is that: no! I know dozens and more of men and women who are actively working on science that do not want to surrender. They keep trying, they quarrel, they strive for better, more, and different.

(I happen to be one of those…).

Thomas,

I have nothing against science and rationality which make a person think critically and find out truth out of heap of falsehood. Certainly this temper is liberating and victory of rationality over dogma. However, your observation of institutionalisation of science is correct. In national power game or mostly on global scale, anything, an idea, a concept, an innovation that can give some an edge over others is always institutionalised and has been instutionalised throughout history of mankind. So, "There are some associated problems: e.g. scientific superiority of nations, science as measure of suppression or science and power, liberty and technological development, social science and social technology, medical progress and personal freedom." To add insult to injury, science has itself become a dogma, it does not listen unconventional voices, there is some kind of APPROVED SCIENCE that does not allow to develop other scientific traditions, especially it comes from outside the domain of scientifically superior nations.

Dear Thomas, even though classical, let's not forget the basic distinction between normal (i.e. institutionalized) science and revolutionary science - in the Kuhnian sense of the word. It is indeed normal science which has lost its liberating power, indeed. Yet, science as a whole cannot and should be confused with liberating, i.e. revolutionary science.

The power of liberation entails a change in the worldview as well as a change in the very capacities of human beings to act. The perverse side consists in the way in which the system has coopted science in a systematic way for the interests of the wealthy.

Let's take a look at: http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/pubs/2014-03-18-handy1-paper-draft-safa-motesharrei-rivas-kalnay.pdf

This model fits here marvelously.

Has science lost its liberating force? We are confident that this is the question that should be done? Since when do has the liberation its objective?

The big power now is, unfortunately, only money, which succeeded in tying down even science and ethics. Too bad.

Thank you all for the interesting answers, despite some are really daunting.

But if Mohammad and Romeo are right, what could be solutions? Has science become exclusive? Does everything, also science and ethics depend on money?

I think there is a difference between science and its technological use. There is no doubt, technology really depends on money and can be used as measure of suppression. But science ‘should’ also be critical. Therefor it should have at least the force to point out crucial aspects. Perhaps tools like researchGate help to communicate such problems.

What do you think are possible ways out of misery?

Regards Thomas

Going back to nature and try to understand it better and communicate to a small but kwalitative public.

Creating events and see what happens. At the same time of globalisation, life develops in small niches.

Science has also the power to find a way out of technological singularity.i

At the time of the enlightenment, as an example, Benjamin Franklin was lionized throughout Europe, and especially in France (where he long served as the chief U.S. minister --i.e., ambassador), in part because of his work on electricity and the invention of the lightning rod. He is usually credited with the discovery that lightening is a form of electrical discharge. In the kite and key experiment, he was able to use lightening to charge a form of electrical battery --thus establishing the identity. But if lightening is an electrical discharge and can be conducted and controlled, then it became implausible to think of lightning strikes as inevitable or unavoidable divine punishment. This would seem to be an example of the liberating power of science--to free humanity from (religious and socially) sanctioned superstition. If so, then this suggests the question of what socially or religiously sanctioned superstitions we may now be subject to --and from which science might help free us.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Salustri, Did Franklin prove, or did he not, that lightening strikes were not inevitable and unavoidable punishments from God? If he did, then science would seem to have liberating power. If he didn't then the burden of disproof would seem to be on you. It seems you need a long story, and that the story is prima facie implausible.

(If I'm wrong about this, then please forgive the favor to our home town hero. ;-) )

H.G. Callaway

Dear Salustri, It sounds to me that you think that science can't be liberating, because this requires a change beyond science--which science cannot affect alone. But surely, if anyone ever thought that science could be liberating, it was because people have thought that science could facilitate a change beyond science. That is the important question.

You are surely correct that "liberating power" is not a concept which belongs to science (though I suppose that the advance of science might count as a kind of liberation itself). From this perspective, however, to expect more than science's "enabling' some liberation is to expect more than science can do (by definition). So, you seem to trivialize your negative answer.

If the question were merely whether "liberating power" is a scientific concept, then the question, plausibly, would never have been asked. If science can be liberating, when scientists bring to public attention facts or advances in knowledge --that put widely accepted (socially established) preconceptions in question, or open them to debate,-- then that would seem to be as much liberation as can reasonably be expected. This is not only possible, but the story about Franklin appears to illustrate the actual effect.

This is not to say, of course, that people may not sometimes be more or sometimes less open to this kind of effect --more or less entrenched in their socially or religiously sponsored preconceptions, but I think that goes without saying. Still if we ask whether this kind of effect is now lost beyond all possible recovery, then I think the answer is "No." Consider, then the normative question: Should we be open to this kind of development or may we, consistent with human capabilities and aspirations safely ignore and exclude it? I dare to leave this questions to others.

H.G. Callaway

I do not know how others would like to react, but I am observing a link between science and power, especially after 2nd world war! It is increasing day by day.It is really a dangerous trend for humankind!

Dear Mishra, "Knowledge is power," according to Lord Bacon; "Science," in origin, is just the Latin word for knowledge. The only question is whether such power as knowledge confers will be dispersed or always concentrated in the hands of those who already have the most power. (This is a tendency arising out of competitions for power.)

Overall its is a kind of political and social question: Will it be possible for scholars and scientists to make their way in life and career without constantly deferring to institutionalized power? Or shall we have social and institutional systems which exclusively reward loyalty and deference (conformity) over insight and achievement? (Will recognition and reward become purely political?)

In that direction one foresees a kind of institutional corruption of the aims of science, which, hereabouts (usually in a more directly political context), we call "pay to play." Now, would that be science's loss of "liberating power" or would it be a destruction of liberating power by politics? To say that the problem is with science is to view its corruption by power to be politically and socially inevitable.

It is certainly true that technology is rapidly changing. But again, it is basically a political decision to allow it to change, or to sponsor its change and development and deployment, at rates beyond those where law and custom are able to comprehend and control the consequences. (I wonder if you would dispute Bacon on knowledge and power, Salustri. "Technology is power" doesn't have quite the same ring!)

H.G. Callaway

@Thomas,

Sorry to visit this post after quite sometime. What is in science that liberates? You are right to point out critical thinking or put other way round "scientific temperament". It allows a person to examine a statement or claim and find out evidence for and against it. This way one finds out truth from falsehood. It liberate people longstanding but socially malignant traditions, unwanted rituals, from dogma and doctrine as well as gives courage to stand for truth.

But, in the present world, ideologies, commitments, pressures, fear of being silenced, to tamper with evidence all are going on (I shall not mention certain pieces of evidence which I have mentioned too often on the RG) for what, obviously as pointed out in unequivocal terms by Romeu, it is money. Business-houses, Governments are not only concealing facts but also finance researches to contradict honest and genuine researches, so that they may earn more, may grab more resources and create problems in peaceful places so that taking advantage of their technology they may interfere as benefactors.

Thanks for your contributions and interesting ideas.

There are some important aspects to me. I agree with Mohammad, that critical thinking is the crucial point.

Some aspects should be considered:

1. Liberty and science change over time. Both are sometimes associated. And there are examples for both liberating (e.g. medicine, energy) and opposite effects (e.g. war technology) of science.

2. Since the European medieval times science changed a lot. In former times religion was dominant but today science is widely accepted especially in secular societies.

3. In many countries more than ever politics rule science and special scientific programs by financial support and use science as means of power. Therefor it is hard to argue that science is free. It is perhaps less free than ever.

• What was liberating in former times, like ‘observation’ changed a lot. Whereas in former times (observation of nature) it liberates from believing in what religion (e.g. catholic church) prescribed, by optimized observation methods / technologies it nowadays is often used to enhance security and control in and of societies (surveillance, observation of people).

• The difference of scientific competences between different societies / countries is larger than ever. Therefor science is one aspect of the observable differences in the current world and often one reason for injustice.

One can argue that this is not an aspect of science itself but on one hand pragmatism is widespread and on the other hand it is hard to discriminate science from its institutions.

Regards Thomas

I agree with issues you raised almost completely.

However, I beg to differ on certain certain points.

My implied contention in the above response has been that during medieval or renaissance times, the persecution by the Church to silence the dissenting voices, now silencing cutting research fund or purchasing intellectual rights of purchasing scientists themselves either not to speak truth or gradually tone down their scientific findings in the national interest (a few who have stake) or some such idol (human created concepts institutionalised to serve a few).

Glaring scientific divide is apparent in digital divide. It is historical fact in political economy that when land owners lobby was strong it let not make mass education inroad in the countryside so that labour supply to farms remains intact. Now , this very policy is carried out in international arena, so that scientifically less advanced, who can improve their conditions using science as a liberating force in farms, in industry, in schools/colleges and society, should always remain dependent on scientifically advanced countries which not only accrue in money in the form of sale of machines and arsenal but also pave way for them to the resources of these less scientifically developed countries. Instead of narrowing this gap, every attempt is directed to broaden it.

More advance in science not only more broadens the gap but unfortunate nations become more and more dependent, it is not science itself, but its monopolised dynamics that is responsible present state of affairs.

These more recent contributions remind me that the Cold War was fought, in significant degree, as a technological competition. This has no doubt had its effects on the institutions and politics of science. Still, on the other hand, there are many worse ways in which the conflict might have developed. In any case, one question implicit is whether science can now advance beyond the the political and institutional configurations of those times.

The idea of science as liberating from religious dogmatisms of the middle ages no doubt has its importance. But that should not blind us to the fact that religious dogmatism is only one kind of social-institutional dogmatism. I sense a resignation in some of the comments in this thread, which might relinquish any liberal influence of science in the interest of not rocking various social-institutional boats afloat. That would be a mistake.

It is good to know what ideas about science are afoot, and i am grateful for the various contributions. I sense, though, that it is not so much the (conceptual) "difficulty" of distinguishing science from the institutions of science as it may be a matter of wanting to ride the roller coaster of institutional power --based on commitment to political conflicts. This, again, is a mistake which relinquishes the prospects of building broader trust and cooperation --as it refuses to acknowledge the potentiality of outsiders to modify existing political and institutional configurations.

H.G. Callaway

I'd like to ask: liberate from what?;

then I'd like to ask - is this "suppressive" force still dominated?;

next question: was the "science" in it's first probes fully independent of everything else?;

I know that:

a) first ideologists of science (Bacon, Descartes) asked for outer supply for their investigations;

b) nowaday science - in principle - can't be made without outer financial and (fast everywhere, excluding math?) technological and industrial support;

so the main theme seems to me non-accurate - a little bit

Dear Tchoussov, you ask "liberate from what?" But this seems unproblematic to me. I suppose that any society has its more conservative side or elements. However the particular society works or functions, particular ideas and particular people can become entrenched in the institutions, to such a degree, that they inhibit needed change or developments. In Russia, this took the form of a call for "glasnost" and "perestroika" (some years back) as I recall. I understood this (forgive my transcriptions of the Russian, if I've not got it quite right) as meaning "openness" or "transparency" and "restructuring." Of course, there has been much water under the bridge since then, but the ideas are quite similar to those proposed elsewhere when social-institutional rigidities appear to get in the way of needed change and the implementation of new ideas. So, the question is whether and to what degree science can be a source or inspiration to reform.

I suppose that science cannot be completely independent of everything else. Still, science can be more or less independent of its sources of support, and in particular times and places it may need to become more independent of sources of support --whether, political, financial or moral and intellectual. Every society has its more conservative elements, but I do not think that science can only exist by complete deference to them. One might understand Bacon's "Knowledge is power," as looking only to established powers-that-be, but we might also understand it as looking to society's power to change for the better, as needed, or on occasion. This often requires new configurations of people and actions, etc. to carry new ideas forward.

H.G. Callaway

dear Callaway,

as I understand, You've said that there are suppresive elements in every society, which are equal to "conservative side or elements" (it's a hard work to define, which elements of society are "conservative");

it seems to me that no one society can exist without some preservation, conservation or reservation;

do You think that ALL parts and elements of society can (and must) be changed on a scientific base?;

i.e. do You think that science can liberate us from every element of our material world? - that's a point of view is similar to a part of Bacon's one (but only a part);

an example of Russia (as every example) can't be interpreted uniquely;

a "science, which inspirates a reform" - do You think, that nowadays researches in global warming of Earth are impartial?;

it seems to me, that You are seeing "A Science" as some ideal enterprise, analogous to Bacon's way of a mage;

it seems to me, too, that You think that not only ideas but productions of ideas exist at least independently (in common) from social circumstances;

it seem's to me that those presuppositions are unreal;

P.S. I don't like to discuss the theme of "change for better"

Dear Tchoussov, I don't think it viable to try to eliminate the more conservative elements from societies. By "conservative" I just mean those elements which are better established and inclined to keep things as they are. I could elaborate, and there are many meanings of "conservative," of course. The point is that the conservatives, too, can be "better or worse." If they are oppressive then this is to be regretted. Certainly, I don't think that the more conservative elements are always oppressive. Short of that, they may still be too resistant to changes and improvements.

I don't imagine for a moment that science can change or govern society on its own. At the the best it can positively contribute. No doubt, people writing on climate change and global warming, and other themes, may be biased, one way or the other. The point is not that this possibility can be eliminated, but instead that we can aim to diminish the hold of such bias or one-sidedness.

I have no doubt that social circumstances have an influence on people's ideas and projects, etc. It may, sometimes be the initial needed reform to make freer inquiry viable in a given society. How to do this? The idea is to make the practice of science more independent of its sources of political, social or moral-intellectual support. We want the results to come out in accord with the facts and our best ideas. There can be social circumstances more supportive or less supportive of scientific inquiry. We know this, too, from the course of Russian history.

No one who believes that Russia is one of the great nations of the earth can doubt that Russia has a power of change, development and improvement within it. Think of Sputnik and Gagarin and how they changed the world; and think too of the reformism of Sakharov. Did Sputnik and Gagarin not help launch the world on later common projects in space? Did Sakharov not help teach us of the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear war? These were improvements. Russian reformism dates back to the Czars --and likely much beyond.

H.G. Callaway

Science - furthermore ,is not a platonic entity. It really exists and has existed via real human beings, men and women. If science has lost its liberating power then that means that dozens and more of scientists have even up - and surrounded, eventually.

My own real, empirical experience is that: no! I know dozens and more of men and women who are actively working on science that do not want to surrender. They keep trying, they quarrel, they strive for better, more, and different.

(I happen to be one of those…).

science can have an liberating force provided it escapes from the triangle that connects Science to Technology and technology to economy. The latter supports just science that involves benefits.

Guido´s short contribution is just like mine; our goup is small but growing.

Dear Verstraeten, I suspect there will always be some kind and degree of connection between science, technology and the economy. (We have to resist over-idealization to effectively deal with problems.) People all around the world are seeking to use new discoveries and applications to produce new products. People have to make a living. Still, I agree that this should not be the chief focus or aim of science itself. Science should be free to seek better understanding of the world and firmer predictions, etc. --whether or not this has any obvious or overt application to technology, products and economic developments. It would not do to have science enclosed in an economic cage.

The reality is, I believe (and I'm open to correction on empirical grounds), that particular actors and institutions will persist in making economic arguments in appealing for their own support. (It is not that I recommend this!) The greater danger is, perhaps, the enlisting of science in the aims of economic nationalisms. say, the idea, that every theoretical argument must directly rest on some pressing economic interest of the nation or its enterprises. That, as it seems to me, is a dismal prospect indeed. In general terms, however, there can be little doubt that scientific advances can add to human well being.

Science will always have significant relationships, of various kinds, to other fields of human activity and endeavor. The question is whether these relationships will be productive and protective of good scientific practice and general human interests. The point is not to abolish those relationships, but to regulate or control them so that they do not become overbearing. In significant degree, this is a matter of administration of the institutions of science. It is also a matter of the everyday practice of scientists. Self-restraint is much needed --to resist the tendency to jump on various economic, institutional or economic-political bandwagons. No doubt, some will disregard the challenge and opportunity.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G.

With most of your statement I agree.

So let me just respond to your last passage.

I also agree that the question is to control the discussed relationships between science, technology and economy but also ethics, politics etc. And additional questions are: how?, To what extent?, and in our discussion: what values should be taken into account?

That is the point of the question: Has science lost its liberating power?

So far, we historically analyzed that there were historical phases in specific regions were science worked liberating or was a liberating force.

What about today? Is science currently liberating enough? Is it more liberating in some countries compared to others? Is it currently more an instrument of power, suppression or liberation, an in which respect? Should we go against this? Is there a need to regulate?

If I understand Romeu the right way, he argues that there such a necessity.

What do you think?

Regards Thomas

Dear Hillecke, Thanks for your reply --and for your engaging question which has evoked so much discussion. You bring up several further interesting questions. As to your "How?" I think that the answer will probably differ from place to place, and perhaps from time to time. Local experts would likely do best at formulating means to the end --of realizing the "liberating" potential of science --in various institutions, kinds of institutions and in various culturally distinct lands. If I know anything, I know that various people have differing ways of accomplishing an end. This "How?" question is a very practical question and people on the ground will likely answer it differently in accordance with local conditions and traditions, etc. I think of independent committees for evaluation of projects, perhaps something like ethics committees, though obviously this would require much expertise in scientific fields. If this would work, I suspect that such committees would need to reach across institutional boundaries, but operate within the proposing institution. Maybe something like that would work, or maybe not. A proper evaluation of any means would depend on much experience within scientific fields and institutions. So, basically, I think I must defer to others about your "How?" question.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Do you think that Maxwell´s laws, the Lorentz transformation, the general relativity . should be research topics in our days?

Dear Verstraeten, I take it that these things are crucial background of contemporary theoretical research in physics. If people want to know how they might reconcile the tensions and conflicts between GR and QM, say, then the history of the fields is important --providing sources of possible/plausible constraint on developments.) Again, if we are concerned with the general public understanding of contemporary debates and developments, then an understanding of the basics is needed. Much the same goes for other fields of science in their relationship to physics. The sciences often have much to gain from each other, and mutual understanding is important to this. The topics you mention are also important to the philosophy of science, which often depends on a deeper understanding of historical development in the sciences. My own related work, on Eddington I should perhaps mention, has partly consisted in the collection of a relevant bibliography of historical sources and advances. I take it that the original sources are worth investigating --partly because interpretation of results sometimes shifts away from those of the original sources.

H.G. Callaway

Thank you H.G. I started my PhD rsearch with Eddington as free fellow of the National Science Foundation of Flanders. However I was the only fellow investigating foundations of physics. Most of my collegues were working on project with practical purposes and supported by sponsors looking for immediate profit

Science in a way that helps man to attain perfection. It is a media through which we think, analyse, understand and ultimately know the environment, nature and universe as a whole. It is the one that tries to bridge the gap between philosophy and reality. As both are striving to reach the levels of perfection, till the both is not achieved there is always a liberating power in both science and philosophy. No matter whatever the other factors like politics, economy, etc play their role in their own manner, science will never loose its power and cannot be contained by the borders of the limiting factors. So is philosophy too.

Dear Mahesh,

I like your positive and encouraging answer. From the principle I would (like to) agree. But it is a very optimistic and perhaps too idealistic position. Philosophy if you reduce it to thinking, is in a way free (we could discuss it separately) but the use of scientific methods depends on the context and the players or stakeholders. For example the availability of adequate resources influence the possibility of the application of a lot of current research methods. And you can not deny that science in general or the application of scientific methods also contain the power to suppress, to control or to manipulate. Scientific research is human, there are different motives and purposes of humans in it. Science is not only done to understand the world and the universe or to find free accessable knowledge.

Regards Thomas

Dear Thomas,

I would also agree with the aspect that the scientific knowledge is dependent on the resources existing. But the knowledge once obtained by anyone in any part of the world will be discussed and passed on to all those who know him or her. No scientist is prejudistic enough to restrict the knowledge to himself. It is true that some of the knowledge are motive oriented as it is rightly told that Wars are mother of All Discoveries, where the knowledge is restricted within the borders. But still its use when becomes common then it breaks the restrictions and tries to serve the mankind in general. Hence sooner or later science will reach to every human being. For example the mobile networks which was restricted to security personals earlier is infact one of the largest business fields at present.

It is to be noted here that there is slight modification in its working which depends on the motive and not the basic thought or knowledge. This is because the basic thought through which as technology or science develops is through philosophy or the theories which drive the discoverer again having its roots directly or indirectly in philosophy.

Dear Salustri, Thanks for your forceful note--with which I substantially agree. I've long thought that we need a strong contrast between science on the one hand, and the associated politics on the other. You are certainly correct to mention here that some human beings use the results of science for unethical purposes. I suspect that is not the precise rub here, though. I also fail to see the potential for oppression in scientific methods. I don't suppose that if we fully appreciate the significance of scientific methods, then everyone will become a scientist. Scientific rationality is, I take it, a bit less "expressive," than some folks may prefer themselves to be. But I suspect this is incidental to the question under discussion.

I think the deeper issue may be the needed contrast between science on the one hand and the associated politics of science and its implementations on the other; people might more properly complain about that politics, or specific aspects of it. Is "big science" chiefly a constituency of particular political viewpoints?

The prevalence of scientific thought and scientific advancements do put a certain pressure on the forms of existing society--evident in the many debates about science and religion, for instance. But more generally, science and scientific results facilitate social and political changes (new social developments may be opened up), and our given societies, sometimes have difficulty keeping up or evaluating the alternative developments which become possible. Is science to be blamed (or praised) for the advent of the "media society," say? I think we could come up with many similar questions. Does the prevalence of the internet, facilitated by computer science, say, mean that people are becoming less social, in face-to-face style, to our general detriment? Again, would we do better with more confidentiality than the internet typically provides? Is science to be blamed for the "surveillance society."

Scientific results are certainly facilitators of social change, but is this to be put upon science --rather than the politics which allows specific implementations of scientific advances? I suspect that this may be part of the deeper question lurking about this thread and discussion.

H.G. Callaway

When we think of the system in general and effect as a whole then the question of liberating or absorbing power doesn't exist. This is because of the simple aspect that an energy is neither created nor destroyed. The map on Obesity is an example for the biased approach on a particular factor which is usually individualised. Say in the same example if all the factors are acting equally on an individual, then that individual will surely not suffer from obesity because one force will negate the effect of the other. The disease is caused when one shows inclination towards one set of factor only which may be either food, individual psychology or infact any other group of factor. This is true in any aspect also. Now the point of the question according to me is has science lost its individuality due to the various social, political, etc factors. which has curbed its growth or its applicability. To this point I feel it is not so. It is only the time factor and the need of the individual, community, state or country that makes it acceptable and inculcating into the different scenario within itself. The need is the main factor that drives every technology, discovery or knowledge of science into the society and social setup irrespective of political, environmental etc influencing factors. That makes the science to be the most liberating power to humanity in its thirst to attain perfection and everlasting peace.

Dear Mahesh, dear Filippo,

science I think is identical with what scientists do, with their purposes, their resources and their methods, their results and their interpretations and the consequences that are drawn. There is no science without humans. And therefor science is not “good” per se. What is good or bad depends not only on knowledge (But knowledge also changes and truth in my opinion is only possible as a regulatory idea and not something that we are really able reach.). So what is good or bad and what is of value is a question of ethics. Therefor values like liberty in my opinion play a relevant role in performing science and dealing with result etc. I rather believe that science should also be used, interpreted and applied wise, what implies additional values. How to imagine science without scientists? Is science free of values?

And I agree with what Filippo stated that scientists are imperfect, but I want to add that it is the same with science.

Regards Thomas

Dear Filippo,

I like that you disagree. But that aliens could do science is only an assumption. And if we interpret any behavior of aliens or animals as science it is an anthropomorphization. Our concepts are human, there is no way out. And I additionally do not agree that science is primarily the recognition that certain acts result in certain outcomes. This is only an aspect of the causality-problem not something that characterizes science generally. E.g. historical science is often applied to explain single events (in your opinion this would not be science) it is the same with medicine and psychology. But also in natural science single events play a role otherwise research on the big bang would not be possible. And learning by trial and error is an important aspect but not only in science but also in life (e.g. evolution). And if trial-and-error learning is identical with science why should we need an additional concept of science? Learning would be enough. In science is more than that and to define science one needs more than a learning theory.

Finding regularities is important in science but in my opinion we should not mix science with what every body does. Science is more systematic, needs a corpus of theories, paradigms, methodologies and consensus … .

But I agree with your idea that science has to develop more robust explanations about phenomena. I prefer the term phenomenon because I think realism is a problem by itself. I as a psychologist would tend to a very weak realism because I have to admit that in psychology fix regularities like natural laws are rather rare.

Regards Thomas

Dear Geurdes, you suggest an interesting turn in this thread and discussion. I suspect that mention of Feyerabend here may prove controversial; but so be it.

May I suggest further that it might be of some interest to include discussion of the question "What is power?" That alone is a sometime controversial question --among philosophers at least. But if we are going to say what it means for science to have "liberating power," then it stands to reason that we have to know what power amounts to in this connection. Consider, perhaps, Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, "...external objects as they appear to the senses, give us no idea of power or necessary connection... ." But if we have no clear idea of power, it would seem, then we have no clear idea of "liberating power." What might you say to this?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Salustri & Geurdes, I fail to see why "liberating power" should not be regarded as a kind of power--so that the Humean claim, say, is relevant. Again, I am not sure that it is best to look on science as a "non-agent." Surely there is an abstract concept of science, but there are also the practices and institutions of science, and this is why the abstract concept is of considerable interest --with the prospect of improving our understanding of these matters in mind.

It seems clear that there are rules of free societies which are different from those of unfree or not-so free societies, and I take it that it is of some importance to consider how free inquiry and its scientific paradigms enter into this. So, if the liberating power of science depends on systems of rules, this would not surprise me. If so, we need to understand the rules to facilitate such liberation as science may be able to provide.

Still any institution of sets of rules, though they may be viewed as solutions to prior problems, may also have their faults. If we genuinely solve one problem, we are bound to find, I think, that another will arise in the new situation eventually. There are no final solutions to all and every human problem. Human powers are always limited, however much they may grow. Old institutions, even the best, tend to get rigid and inflexible over time. I think it will not do to venerate the old just because it is old ---the point is to understand how it has functioned-- and nor do we want to make prospect of the better a constant enemy of the good.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Salustri, I'll buy your scientific community as an agent, though I think it would not help to ignore the specifics of the organization and practices of science. Part of the problem with much the talk of "community" is that it suggests that every community is organized in just the same way, or is just the same, while it is the specific forms and rules of organization which matter more than the mere fact of community. After all, some communities are simply authoritarian and dogmatic.

Still, asking whether science has lost its liberating power is not like asking if an avocado has lost its liberating power. No organization or arrangement of avocados has plausibly been thought to have anything similar to it. Speaking of "science," on the other hand, is plausibly a kind of shorthand for something more difficult to describe or characterize.

Also, to Geurdes, I would not say that the power of science of interest here is like electric power, because electric power, I suppose, can be understood more or less fully within physics and natural science. The supposed liberating power of science, on the other hand, can't be understood except in relation to how the results of science are typically used (and arrived at?) by human beings. There are certainly ethical, social and perhaps methodological questions afoot, and these won't be answered within natural science alone. (Would it be good methodology if we all march off in lock-step pursuing the same hypothesis?) These questions won't be answered in ignorance of science, its results and related social institutions, either.

If as Bacon put it, "knowledge is power," what this means is that knowledge enables us, individually or collectively, to do things that we otherwise could not do. People often speak of "harnessing the power of nature" for human purposes (say building a dam), or "subduing" nature (maybe control of floods, or curing disease). This may sometimes be overstated, but in any case, what is involved does facilitate our control of natural forces, and because of that, it seems as real as any power apart from human agency. Although there may be many forms of power (consider "horse power"), I take it that the word is not simply ambiguous.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Salustri, Good. I'd only add that passivity in this connection is also an aspect of prevalent forms of organization and practice.

H.G. Callaway

The initial question suggests that science liberated us (in the Middle Ages!) from the hierarchical powers of the church. The reality is more ambivalent. The experimental scientific movement also originated in the church, by monks who didn’t skew labor in seeking the way ahead. They didn’t only leave to us many inventions (three-year agricultural cycle, the big plow etc.) but also the moral legacy of sharing inventions and bringing them into the open in order to make them more effective. Pagan communities would keep their inventions secret and many companies and research institutions would like to return to that habit.

I see many engineers still being carried forward by that inspiration. But this old inspiration needs to be renewed by a new area of scientific research, requiring a new method. Social urgency should guide the analytical methods of science in order for it to remain liberative. How to establish social urgency? By listening to those voices that articulate suffering and points to new imperatives and thereby marching orders for humanity. That is a matter of living language and the methods of articulating and listening to living language in the process of its creation has been discovered by Rosenstock-Huessy in his historical and sociological work.

Dear Kroesen, You make an interesting turn in the discussion. In a sense, you bring up the issue of the "two cultures." So, if science is too little aware of humanistic culture, then how can it be guided by its sense of "social urgency.?" On the other hand, if the humanities are too little aware of the specifics of scientific research, then how can they reasonably guide the sciences? Can this gap be bridged?

I would assume that the "hierarchical powers of the church" in the middle ages reflected the hierarchical character of politics in the middle ages, the polity of the church being a reflection of accepted conceptions of political organization. We now have great diversity in church polity. Yet, forms of dogmatism are widely felt to persist, and some church polity has remained substantially unchanged into the modern world. Is this a problem on your view? Is this a source of dogmatism?

I suspect that all would agree that the question in this thread is not a purely scientific question. It can't be answered within the natural sciences in particular, since the "liberating power" of science depends on how scientific results are typically used, at the least. This means that if science is to endorse and insist upon its "liberating power," then it needs to accept some responsibility for the relationship of science to wider human concerns. (Many scientists do, of course, accept such responsibility.) At the same time, I think it doubtful that science would accept guidance, let alone "marching orders," arising from discussion in which it cannot, or is not allowed, to participate.

It appears that the gap between the "two cultures" is an impediment to the "liberating power" of science. Do you agree?

H.G. Callaway

The point that I am making is that science was evoked into existence as a response to human suffering in the first place. Without that inspiration it will relapse into paganism much like at present paradoxically enough the pharmaceutical industry to a large extent is doing. That is not just due to the problem of two cultures – if you frame the problem like that it becomes a problem of the interaction between two established discourses. We need a science that distinguishes between culture (heritage of the past) and inspiration (from new imperatives) and that knows how to establish the guiding imperatives both for the humanities and the sciences. In that regard I point to the work of Rosenstock-Huessy on grammar and language, not the language as structure, as the structuralists do, but as living speech.

By the way the church hierarchy didn’t merely reproduce older hierarchical practices. It introduced a relative independence of the lower echelons and a church organization that was ruled by law. Western feudalism took this as a model for the relationship between lords and vassals. Thereby it should be distinguished from all other forms of feudalism.The great church councils in the Middle Ages constituted a democratic movement within the church counterbalancing the monarchical deficiencies of the papacy and prepared the later parliamentarism in which the higher powers are kept in check by the lower ones. The mutual penetration of hierarchy and egalitarianism (criticism from below) is maybe the hallmark of Western civilization, distinguishing it from despotism, which knew of nothing else but absolute obedience. No scientific progress possible whatsoever in such a spiritual climate.

Regarding the question, what is observed is that there may be a liberal character in reflections on science, the role of research, exchange of views among researchers, among other signs of open communication.

Another thing, on one hand, is the application of public policies on science and technology in today's geostrategic context of nations; on the other hand, the secret nature of plans, programs and research projects, own the military industrial complex of groups of nations, grouped in blocks. In this sense there is a liberating power of science. On the contrary, there is now a coercive power of scientific activity.

Literal meaning of the word science: comes from the Latin SCIENTIA which means KNOWLEDGE. Therefore, the scientific method is a method to ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE. And what is knowledge? The perception of physical reality that rational beings acquire through their senses. In the case of the human species, that would be what we see, touch, hear, smell and taste and incorporate into our neural connections and use in our interaction with the physical world to increase our odds of survival. Now, would somebody tell me when exactly the perception of reality and the pursuit of survival went out of fashion? Regardless of religious persuasion, ideological preferences or simple wishful thinking, we, as material beings, are bound to the laws of physics. That, thank Infinity, does not change.

Dear Guenzburger, Bravo! Good for you.

H.G. Callaway

Dear All,

I present a off the beaten track approach here. Please proceed with a pinch of salt.

In Yoga science, there are innumerable universes besides our own. The physical laws that hold good in our own universe and planet are not applicable in another. As such the world we perceive with our five senses is only partially true, beneath what we understand as the 'physical world of matter' are innumerable fine forces at work, whom the ancient Greeks called "Gods"/Angels, "Deos", Shining beings. Thus there exist Gods for materialization, Germination/fertilisation, Grammar, Music, Mathematics, Metre(of poetry), bio-chemical reactions and so on...It was understood by the wise that the purpose of the physical world is to serve as a classroom for souls to learn and evolve. The soul is simply a mini-packet of energy embodied in a physical body/personality. The gift of the body is to serve as a medium/instrument for the soul to learn its lessons for evolution. The physical world as perceived by the senses was known by the seers to be untrue and thus not worth seeking. Only the call of the soul to be reunited with the "Source" is real, the physical body and the physical universe being equated to children's books and playthings having only one purpose-to be instruments of learning, and not an end by themselves. Yet the senses are constantly attracted to material pleasures obtained by the contact of the senses with their objects of attraction. Their unreality is explained thus- The Mind has two parts -Upper and Lower, is akin to a servant of the soul.The Lower mind, which is made up of fine matter, is naturally attracted to/gravitates towards other material things of the world in the search for happiness. But the contact of objects of desire with the senses only brings pleasure which fades away with time and is temporary. Thus man keeps running after desires of the Lower Mind and sometimes even gets addicted to them. The Higher Mind is turned towards subjectivity(Janus, the Two faced Greek God) ad the Soul. With time, the soul evolves through many births to realise that the physical world of matter and the senses is unreal and the real goal of life is the Super soul. Thus the evolution of Consciousness works from the Animal Man who is purely 'me-first' to the higher man who realises the "Futility of Desire". It is at this stage of the journey that Man asks questions about the 'why' and 'how' of creation. At this juncture, someone who has already trod the path before him and reached the goal contacts him to guide him further. He is generally wise and called as a 'master' or Guru. Under the Guru's guidance, a physical and mental regimen is followed which seeks to release man, the soul, from the bondage of matter and the senses. It is described as eight-fold path of mental discipline and a scientific technique of breathing and alignment with the universe, ultimately culminating in the 'Superconscious' state with the realisation that everything is "Consciousness" and that the same Consciousness is the essence of the universe, including himself. This is called Liberation/Freedom/Immortality/Nirvana/Moksha in many faiths, where one become One with the universe. Thus the purpose of science, in its truest sense is leading man to Freedom and release from the shackles of matter. The path of Yoga has been tread by many wise men of the East and the West since millenia and still continues to guide men and women to the ultimate goal. Thus science, in its truest sense, has remained true and continues to 'liberate' souls to the superconscious state.

It is only recently, with the emergence of the Cartesian thinking and the industrial 'revolution' that man has become obsessed with matter and the 'empirical' basis of science. Thus nature lost its sanctity and man ceased to revere nature, to quote Roger Bacon-"We have to torture nature and force her to yield her secrets to us". The result of this material way of life and science is there for all to see. The wise again declare that this is only a temporary diversion, realising that desires are only ephemeral like bubbles, and that material consumption doesnt bring true happiness, only imbalance, man will again set his sight on the 'Science of Spirit' to 'truly' liberate himself.

Hope this helps.

Dear All:

I have something to add to this very important and timely question raised by Thomas. I have been pondering on this aspect of 'science and politics' for some time now. Being a practicing biochemist looking for the regulation of active ion-transport in animal cell, and a life-long yogi, I looked at this fundamental problem very closely. Hence, my response is a long one (please see attachment). Hope to hear your feedback at your convenience.

Tushar

Dear all, 

It strikes me at this particular point in time that the question of whether "science has lost its liberating power?" is, in part, an experimental question. If so, we cannot reasonable expect to find an answer valid through all particularities and variations of circumstance. There is a prior question, in a sense: Do you (we) want science to retain "liberating power," or not? If not then science naturally descends into mere technique (and careerism?) But if the answer is positive, this implies that actual scientists are willing to take some risk to make a needed point.

Where the dangers have been great, then scientists have been willing to take a stand. Consider, for instance, the organizations of physicists against the dangers of nuclear war. So far as I know, such organizations still exist. Scientists of such organizations have been unwilling to simply and passively discover the facts and physical laws that placed the possibility of ultimate self-destruction into human hands. Instead, they pointed to the dangers and argued for nuclear disarmament. To move away from this once more prevalent fear and danger is, I submit, a form of human liberation. It is the refusal to simply go along with the programs of arms development and deployment --in view of the fact that there are powerful social and political forces favoring it-- and to question and argue against such developments on the basis of the ascertained facts and dangers.

Insofar as scientists are willing to make similar arguments, focused on genuine dangers, then science will not have lost its liberating power. In a sense, the question amounts to this: have science and scientists become too narrowly focused to make use of the potential for liberation implicit in expanding knowledge of the world?

H.G. Callaway   

Dear Salustri, 

A fine, quite complementary point. Surely, those scientists in the best positions to emphasize the dangers of climate change should do so; and you will find few skeptical notes from your truly. Frankly, I see greater immediate dangers in the growing social and economic inequalities--around the world-- and in the potential for ethnic and nationalistic conflicts arising therefrom.   

H.G. Callaway

(Repeat!)

Dear all,

It strikes me at this particular point in time that the question of whether "science has lost its liberating power?" is, in part, an experimental question. If so, we cannot reasonable expect to find an answer valid through all particularities and variations of circumstance. There is a prior question, in a sense: Do you (we) want science to retain "liberating power," or not? If not then science naturally descends into mere technique (and careerism?) But if the answer is positive, this implies that actual scientists are willing to take some risk to make a needed point.

Where the dangers have been great, then scientists have been willing to take a stand. Consider, for instance, the organizations of physicists against the dangers of nuclear war. So far as I know, such organizations still exist. Scientists of such organizations have been unwilling to simply and passively discover the facts and physical laws that placed the possibility of ultimate self-destruction into human hands. Instead, they pointed to the dangers and argued for nuclear disarmament. To move away from this once more prevalent fear and danger is, I submit, a form of human liberation. It is the refusal to simply go along with the programs of arms development and deployment --in view of the fact that there are powerful social and political forces favoring it-- and to question and argue against such developments on the basis of the ascertained facts and dangers.

Insofar as scientists are willing to make similar arguments, focused on genuine dangers, then science will not have lost its liberating power. In a sense, the question amounts to this: have science and scientists become too narrowly focused to make use of the potential for liberation implicit in expanding knowledge of the world? I do not imagine, for a moment, of course, that the various dangers will be equally obvious to all. Right?

H.G. Callaway