21 October 2007

"There is here the profound difference between two types of authority; one laying down general presuppositions, the other imposing conclusions."

----Michael Polanyi, Science Faith & Technology

If Senator Clinton becomes President of the United States, scientists and non-Christians should definitely become concerned.

On 4 October 2007, Senator Clinton announced her science agenda: to protect "science research from 'political pressure'"; to "spend $50 billion on fighting climate change and finding energy alternatives to foreign oil"; and to satisfy the need for a " 'robust' program of human exploration of space" (Patrick Healy and Cornelia Dean, "Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics," The New York Times, 5 October 2007).

She sounds like Reagan in a shade of green.

The historian, Carl N. Degler once stated, "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" - did the Senator completely forget about Reagan's Space Wars? Moreover, if she really believes she can shield science from politics while fostering an agenda to spend $50 billion for political party-specific ends, the only person she is fooling is herself.

She goes on to state:

"When science is politicized, it is worse than wrong [...] It is ...dangerous for our democracy."

Immediately, she wrangles science directly into the political bullpin, highlighting it as a very political issue to safeguard from the 'wrong kind of politics'. What she really seems to mean is that she will shield science from Bush's politics by adopting it into her campaign agenda. She does democracy no great service by doing so, and only furthers the thinly veiled 'myth of democracy'.

It gets worse:

In a telephone interview after her speech, Healy and Dean report the Senator also "criticized opponents of evolution" stating:

"I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying.[...]I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason."

In a country touting itself on diversity and based upon a framework championing the freedoms of speech and religion, how can she think she can rally support by espousing a specific content of speech and a religion specific to one faith? It is very dangerous when politicians harken back to our Founding Fathers because they refer to and utilize the language of the 18th Century and honestly believe it still carries today in the same meaning and relevance. Indeed, "reason" of the 18th Century is an anachronism of an erstwhile doxa in critical need of re-evaluation and updating because of its evolution today. The current science, technology, and intelligence demand the re-evaluation of "reason" - a concept today no longer a part of the language of the Enlightenment.

There is a marked difference in the language of "reason" between the centuries, mainly because of the turn and unfolding of events of our history - Western European and American - that requires critical pause. When the Senator states that scientists must be "steered by values and morals" and supports " 'ethical framework' " guidelines for scientific research, she unduly brings the language of morality into that of science, mistakingly thinking the two can be melded into one harmonious structure. Granted, there are protocols of ethics in place that scientists follow. However, when science is structured by such loaded concepts as "values" and "morals", one must seriously ask: whose values? whose morals?

Nietzsche knew the dangers of "morality" back in the 19th Century, why can we not get on the same page?

This brings me to Polanyi's quote in the beginning. In delineating two types of authority, he identifies general authority and specific authority, stating:

"There is here the profound difference between two types of authority; one laying down general presuppositions, the other imposing conclusions" (Michael Polanyi, Science Faith & Technology).

To restate then, while general authority allows the individual the will to act upon accepted presuppositions that give order to beliefs, specific authority denies the individual that freedom of will. (An example Polanyi uses for specific authority is the Catholic Church that imposes one system of ideas from a central authority that believers must unquestionnably follow.) This type of specific authority is what the Senator is in grave danger of not only espousing, but also extolling. And this, this is a very dangerous path to traverse.

In a different direction, there is talk from a National Research Council panel for the "free flow of scientific knowledge and researchers from other countries" (Reuters, "Experts Urge Exchange of Scientific Talent," 19 October 2007). The plan is to balance science and security through the government that will also bolster our national security. Because it is for a political end, the proposition here is for a freedom of exchange that is not only encouraged, but also safeguarded.

There is a resounding need for the free flow of information and ideas, particularly of research in general, and science in particular. The Open Source community is striking blows in the copyright debate (for a later blog) as information struggles to be free. It is about time that the National Research Council in collaboration with the government take steps in ensuring the free exchange of science (at least as a preliminary direction towards the freedom of ideas in general). The caution will just come in following through with that freedom without underlying policy manipulations.

There is an overwhelming call for normative policies to accommodate changes brought on by science, technology, and intelligence. Equally, if not more importantly, the realities of today require a new language of relevance. There is too much 'mixing' of anachronistic concepts mistaken as relevant. When policymakers do this, it is beyond careless, it is dangerous.

Although the integrity of our democracy may be questionable, let us not continue these mistakes towards obliterating democracy altogether.