Science Underpins Democracy

Science itself is not democratic. The idea that the earth is the centre of the universe, is not identical in value, to the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. Some descriptions of what reality consists of, and how it works, are more precise and adequate than other descriptions. Carefully collected and examined evidence from the world can often guide scientists in making proper conclusions, when deciding which descriptions are more precise representations of reality. The effect of this is that, in the long run at least, we move towards a more detailed and complete description and understanding of reality.

It is important to understand that this notion of progress is true and possible only because science has a background template, namely reality, on which to test its findings for matching. In this sense, science is teleological and will, when conducted properly, yield converging results even when departing from a number of different cultural backgrounds. The more science we do, the more scientific science becomes since our knowledge of the template which to test against becomes more complete. Scientifically based knowledge thus is not just caused, not just historically or culturally contingent, it is reasoned, reliable, and true within a number of contexts.

Such a pre-given template does not exist for society. Reality around us, nature, has pre-existed us, existed alongside us, and will continue to exist after we are long gone. Nature just is. Our society, on the other hand, is becoming. Becoming what we make of it. Moreover, it is only here while we are here. This is not to be understood as dualism, but rests on the realisation that universal laws of nature exists on timescales the are vastly larger than the localized laws of society. Ultimately, of course, humans are part of nature, and so is society.

So where science can progress by undertaking an exhaustive examination of reality, and present a picture of it which is becoming evermore true in an absolute sense (regardless if some individuals or groups might be comfortable with this emerging picture or not), the leaders and peoples of societies has no such givens to try to strive towards. While this may be distressing to some religiously or pseudo-religiously inclined people, it should not be to most, since this is the very foundation of our freedom. A scientist who is being true to nature, and that is really what science is about, is not free to choose whether the earth is the centre of the universe with the sun circling around it, or the earth is in orbit around the sun. However, we, the people, are free to choose whether we should invest all our resources in taking care of the old or invest in a number of different areas. I shall not here discuss why we in the western world are free to make such choices, suffice to say that democracy, to some extent, is working in our societies.

Science, as an essentially undemocratic enterprise, could appear then, to be at odds with the rest of society, which is, allegedly, democratic. Quite to the contrary, science, when done honestly (and frankly, it should only be called science when done so) is one of the strongest foundations one which you could ever hope to build a democracy. Why...? Because wise decision-making requires reliable information. It is that simple.

Many have argued that we can use the knowledge that science obtains to direct policy. We can, and we should, but only through the democratic pathways, by providing the people with information on which they can base their decisions.

So if science can help society in such a general way as outlined above, what can society do for science? This is a more delicate question and it is not answered easily. When putting together the millions of pieces in the big puzzle science is solving, society might find it useful to try to guide science to focus its attention more strongly on certain parts of the puzzle and to ignore other areas that seems to be of little direct use to society. This is acceptable to some extent, but it is important for society to understand and respect the integrity of science, just as it is the other way around.

It is important to realise that knowledge has inherent value, regardless of its direct usefulness, and society should try to secure knowledge that cannot be sponsored by industry exactly because it has no direct application and therefore no financial support from the profit-oriented sector.