You might say, that in science the wars are fought peacefully because the only weapon allowed is the argument. The “scientific enemies” can even be personal friends!

Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein is a clear example of this, I think.

But of course this is only possible because there is Nature to judge who is correct (as you point out). Another reason is, that the arguments can be expressed in the language of mathematics. Maybe this is because Nature (objective reality) is somehow mathematical in essence – a mathematical structure?

Outside science, this is clearly not so. Things are much more subjective, and you cannot always judge who is objectively correct. Sometimes it is even necessary to “argue with bombs”.

But as the world is today, I think it is a good idea to concentrate on diplomacy.

I think science would be more analogous to a Republic than a Democracy. It’s not majority rule; we don’t sit around and vote on whether global warming is happening. Rather, there are certain rules we must follow whether we like it or not. And our right to explore the laws of nature is, for convenience’s sake, placed in trust with certain leaders.

While the description as applied to “science” is wonderful, it would be good to recognize that this description of “something that people do to look for truth” applies to all academic disciplines. The model is certainly found among the sciences, but it is equally there in the humanities/arts.

Dan

Yes, that article has good insights and I am glad you picked up on it. But labeling nature as a despot is an anthropomorphic confusion. The terms ‘dictator’ or ‘despot’ refer to the behaviour of people.

That Soviet Russia generated good science is a testament rather to the indomitable spirit and intelligence of Soviet scientists that could prevail despite the circumstances.

Dan- great post, and this is definitely an excellent column by Overbye — it makes me wonder how much Sagan he’s read, because Carl says quite eloquently *very* much the same thing in the very first chapter of The Demon-Haunted World, one of my very favorite exploration of the wonder, mystery, and beauty of science-type books, published near the end of his life. Wonder if you’ve had a chance to read it..?

(You can actually read a fair bit of it online in e.g. the Amazon reader, but i do highly recommend buying a copy if you don’t have one already..)

For Science, AND Democracy — hand in hand —
M

CaveMan, there are many kinds of knowledge, most of which are not particularly scientific. This doesn’t make my knowledge of (for instance) the nuances of Coltrane’s early- to mid-60’s work any less valid, but it’s not scientific. It’s a combination of factual data (“1961’s Village Vanguard recording is more abstract and “avant-garde” than the music released in the years immediately following”) and informed opinion (“A Love Supreme is the best album ever”). It’s still knowledge by any reasonable definition of the term.

I also know a lot about the way women think and feel, which is very useful knowledge indeed – in fact I would say it’s the most useful knowledge I have acquired in this life, with all due respect to Trane, and differential equations – and I can assure you there is nothing scientific whatsoever about that subject. To any female readers, let me assure you that this is intended as a compliment, since it implies your nature cannot be reduced to formulae or subjected to experiment.

I should note also that in my opinion this observation is what elevates science to its position of importance. There are many modes of knowing, but science is unique among them in its rigor. Rigorous demands of experimental proof and reproducability, and unforgiving attempts at falsification, are poor approaches to jazz – or to women for that matter – but they are what makes science work.

Daniel, a very nice post, thank you.

I just watched Lee Smolin’s video “Science is like democracy” which has an interesting take.
In it he compares the aristotelian worldview of absolute authority, in a time of absolute rulers. This followed by the revolutions of Newton’s laws and Payne’s and others’ rights. Then finally describing our present society of interacting societal forces and parallelling it with modern physical theory.

And yet … if I step off a high bridge, no social construct is going to prevent me from becoming a damp spot on the pavement.

On the individual level, some subset of those values (“honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view”) are demonstrably absent from many individuals who, in spite of these shortcomings (or, perhaps because they’re incorrigible bullies, because of them), have very successful science careers. I think it’s because nature is such a tyrant that those values are emergent properties of the process, that the community of scientists can claim as a unit. In other words, the integrity of science is seemingly greater than the sum of its parts, because the process, as competitive, and even combative, as it can be, makes nature the cruelest of final arbiters, eventually annihilating anything less than accurate. She cannot be fooled, as Feynman said. People all to often can, which is why I think science is nothing without experimental verification.

Democracy and science have direct relationship to each other. Old world democracy for example in the ancient Greece was not a real democracy because they practice slavery. Democracy rules are the results of scientific studies of human societies.
I believe that the democracy has two bases: wisdom and Justice. wisdom is the source of science and truth; it’s mission is to pursue truth and benefit current and future human societies’ . Also wisdom explains what is justice ; the minimum of justice is Human Rights. Voting is for problems which does not have a scientific solution otherwise democracy should follow scientific rules about human and society and every things. Democracy requares that science should not be used against any human or human society. Opposite to democracy is terrorism. Terrorist is a body or organization or a government who denies democracy and its rules.