Think about willful academic blindness(ACADEMIC TUNNELING) vrs willful democratic blindness(POLITICAL TUNNELING)....
The first type/academic tunneling seems now normal, taking place at universities, thinktanks, international organizations, governments....which will lead to the death of science in a way that THOMAS KUHN was not expecting, BUT IT IS NOT BEING SEEN AS A THREAT TO THE SURVIVAL OF SCIENCE as it seems we are now in a non-science based world as science or not, they still will push what they want to push.....
The second type/political tunneling is SEEN as an existential threat to liberal democracy as political tunneling does not work under democratic rules just see the political dynamics under political tunneling processes under exism movements like Trumpism....
Hence, willful political tunneling with the support of alternative facts is seen as a serious threat to democracy from within, but willful academic tunneling with the support of alternative academic facts is not seen apparently as a serious threat to science from within, which makes you wonder, why.
And this raises the question, Why willful blindness is taken as a serious threat to the survival of democracy, but not the survival of science?
What do you think?
Note:
This is an academic question, not a political one.
Science - 1st of all is the tool for the better effectiveness of industry. As a tool, science itself may be organized in various forms.
But democracy - is just a form of being of socety.
Democracy in science not most effeictive form of scientific trade/work.
From another hand: your phrase 'democratic rules' if equal in meaning with therm 'democratic tunneling'. The same may be scribed about science. Its just a life.
Science, or the sciences, are often in the service of the country (political interests), industry or the military. This is where the money comes from. The term democracy is given too much weight, especially here in the so-called 'West' (West of where one has to ask). Being able to vote for a particular party or politician isn't democracy at work. Neither science nor the military are 'democratic' institutions. They run on a strict hierarchical order. Otherwise, they couldn't function. Science is not and has never been objective. It is organized and run by subjective beings who have their particular barrows to push. Rationality (and objectivity) is an Enlightenment myth. Science is a belief system like most others it sought to replace.
Dear Mr. Muñoz!
Let's take a practical view: a case -study on "misinformation". Democracy can be eliminated by willful blindness by generating misinformation for people to follow a specific ideology. In contrast, science has basic principles in place such as guidelines for example for progressing science for the benefit of industries and the public:
Ecker, U.K.H., Prike, T., Paver, A.B. et al. Don’t believe them! Reducing misinformation influence through source discreditation. Cogn. Research 9, 52 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00581-7, Open access:
Article Don’t believe them! Reducing misinformation influence throug...
Łabuz, M., Nehring, C. On the way to deep fake democracy? Deep fakes in election campaigns in 2023. Eur Polit Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-024-00482-9, Open access: Article On the way to deep fake democracy? Deep fakes in election ca...
Sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely
Good day, Pavel, Harry, and Bulcsu, thank you for taking the time to write.
The question is a simple why one and why not the other question,,,,Why do we care about losing our normal liberal democracy, but we seem not to care about losing our science.
REMEMBER THE PANDEMIC MANTRA REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN : FOLLOW THE SCIENCE.... because we are supposed to be living, especially in western countries like Canada in a SCIENCE BASED DEMOCRACY.
So the question is simple BY DESIGN and requires a short simple answer:
The question is Why willful blindness is taken as a serious threat to the survival of democracy, but not the survival of science?
Just indicate a short Why from your point of view and I will reply to exchange ideas
Respectfully yours;
Hello Lucio,
I think the difficulty is that democracy and sciences are multi-faceted and messy. Though largely seen as secular societies, most of the so-called democracies are anything but universally secular. Religion or religions play an essential part in how they are governed. Also, there are great many scientists who profess a religious affiliation (remember the author of the big bang theory was a Roman Catholic priest). I prefer to explore the how of questions rather than the why, as a way of explanation. But then I might be off the track of what you are asking.
Kind Regards,
Harry
Good day Harry!
It should not be difficult for a scientist to say that willful academic tunneling using alternative academic facts is wrong as it should not be difficult for someone who respect the values of democracy and the independent rule of law to say that willful political tunneling using alternative facts is wrong, do not you think so?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Well Lucio, I think it is most difficult, especially for political operatives because ideology trumps both democracy and the idea of an independent rule of law. Similarly, if a pharmaceutical company is paying for scientific research into a particular disease and the effectiveness of their medication to treat such, tunnelling is quite possible. In this case funding opportunities trump facts. We would need to consider the ethics in every case, and who decides what is ethical practice? Realpolitik's and transactional economic decisions will bend and distort what is considered wrong to meet particular needs.
Harry, good day.
I asked the question this way to point out the irony that when people are spreading alternative fact based information and misinformation on the political/democracy arena we call it a threat to democracy; and when people are promoting alternative academic fact based information and misinformation on the science side/scientific arena there seems to be silence from other scientists, we do not call it a threat to the survival of science.... You know Harry, in science the ETHIC is you follow the facts and report the facts as they come or they are and if they lead to paradigm shift, there will be paradigm shift.....THAT IS CALLED academic integrity, the pillar on which THOMAS KUHN based his scientific paradigm evolution loop so that when there is consensus for paradigm change/concensus on science based solutions, academic integrity ensures that paradigm change happens/science based solutions are implemented.... But Kuhn did not expect a systematic breakdown of academic integrity to avoid paradigm shifts and keep the status quo in a world under academic tunneling/a world outside science.....the 2012-2024 green market paradigm shift avoidance period comes to mind which requires permanent academic tunneling...as there is now a permanent environmental market failure that requires permanent government intervention...
So the why is linked a systematic breakdown of academic integrity as how can you expect scientists to go along with non-science based agendas?
Thank you for commenting
Lucio
Greetings Lucio,
Perhaps the reason we don't hear from scientists is because they are governed by the institutions they are employed by to not engage in these kinds of debates? The public sphere of social media, plus digital and print, are rife with hacks who peddle all kinds of alternate 'facts' to help their bottom line or push their agenda. Unfortunately, over the past few years, there has been an anti-intellectual push by conservative or reactionary politicians and commentators. We have the same issue here, with daily attacks in the media on the integrity and usefulness of universities and the work they do. I think it is a mistake to not push back, to leave unchallenged, these types of attacks.
I too like the approach of Kuhn, and his work lead me, in part, to the work of Foucault and his epistemic shifts or ruptures. When I reach further back, I enjoy the writings of Koyre, as he asks what we have lost in terms of being in the world, following the rise of the Enlightenment epistemologies. That we have lost our place.
In terms of the environment, and efforts to protect it, vast amounts of money are ranged against the science. The water is also muddied because funding for science also comes from those industries that rely on fossil fuels, for example. The advertisements are ubiquitous on social media. This is also ironic.
You certainly set me thinking early in the morning!
Kind Regards,
Harry
Good morning Harry, thank you for writing. The reasons you provide justifying silence of the part of scientists have merits as they are direct or indirect pressures, be it professional, economic, and political, which is why the world needs now more than ever INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS so that the record of the history of economic thought and development does not leave out the fact that since 1987 WCED we started a process of trying to manage sustainability problems instead of fixing the root cause creating then in the first place, which continued with UNCSD 2012 Rio + 20 conference where instead of creating and implementing green markets they continue with the ideas of managing the consequences of environmentally distorted traditional markets, a green market paradigm shift avoidance process that continues today 2024...
Harry, you may appreciate the following set of articles written with a simple goal of pointing out the irony of promoting non-science based ideas to solve sustainability problems as science based.
Sustainability thought 170: What happens to the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop under willful academic blindness? What are the implications of this?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362566384_Sustainability_thought_170_What_happens_to_the_Thomas_Kuhn's_paradigm_evolution_loop_under_willful_academic_blindness_What_are_the_implications_of_this
Sustainability thought 171: How to state the structure of the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop for the traditional market of Adam Smith when shifting to sustainability markets, to red markets, and to green markets under academic integrity?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362759166_Sustainability_thought_171_How_to_state_the_structure_of_the_Thomas_Kuhn's_paradigm_evolution_loop_for_the_traditional_market_of_Adam_Smith_when_shifting_to_sustainability_markets_to_red_markets_and_t
Sustainability thought 172: What is the structure of the general Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop when the traditional market is a golden paradigm and when it is a flawed paradigm?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363614112_Sustainability_thought_172_What_is_the_structure_of_the_general_Thomas_Kuhn's_paradigm_evolution_loop_when_the_traditional_market_is_a_golden_paradigm_and_when_it_is_a_flawed_paradigm
Sustainability thoughts 143: Pointing out the different roads towards sustainability markets when placing the traditional market model of Adam Smith under the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm transformation loop analytically and graphically
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364694521_Sustainability_thoughts_143_Pointing_out_the_different_roads_towards_sustainability_markets_when_placing_the_traditional_market_model_of_Adam_Smith_under_the_Thomas_Kuhn's_paradigm_transformation_loopstainability thought 170: What happens to the Thomas Kuhn’...
Ah, thank you for links Lucio. I will do some reading today.
Ciao,
Harry
In short, Science and politics have different ways of working - politics uses relatively broader samples of observed events and generalizes them for analysis, whereas, science uses narrower ones. Different threats and different consequences .
Democracy and politics and wilfull blindness. When politician use alternative facts and wilfull tunneling democratic politicians call it out in the name of saving normal liberal democracy; when academics use alternative academic facts and wilful academic tunneling there seem to be silence despite the threat to death of science in a way that Thomas Kuhn did not anticipate.
Thank you for commenting!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling