On why scientists should avoid becoming politicians. We had an interesting discussion about this already; I set my arguments down here just as a more permanent record and not with the intent of poking anyone in the eye about this.
The problem isn't just with the politicians. It's a threefold problem, and without addressing each aspect of it, we are forever doomed to more of the same.
First, there are the politicians themselves. If you have bad rulers the rest is irrelevant. Second is the political system in which those rulers operate. No matter how noble their intentions, if the system of government is itself fundamentally flawed, the politician's aspirations will be rendered impotent or perverted. And third, assuming that we wish to maintain some form of democracy, are the voters themselves. No matter the greatness of the politicians or the suitability of the system of governance, if the voters are a bunch of bigoted idiots, a fair and just society will not result.
Both the political system and the politicians themselves are inherently partisan and it is strongly in the interests of everyone involved to maintain that partisanship. The system of opposing political parties is one that demands enemies, those who are seen as attacking the others not because the facts support their own claims but because it's their political duty to do so... Post-truth happens in part because it genuinely does not matter for a politician what the truth is, because that does not necessarily correlate with them winning elections. And so it behooves the partisan politician to create enemies where none exist.
Scientific knowledge acts as part of a series of critical checks and balances of the system : even the worst politicians are bound to respect the truth at least a little. Political reality is not wholly detached from objective reality so long as we have a fair idea of what the hell objective reality actually is. Now consider what would happen if there were no perceived boundaries between knowledge and politics. Post-truth and alternative facts would be only the beginning, and this is a chilling prospect which should terrify anyone.
Scientists are neither trained nor especially well-suited to leadership or rhetoric; they are very ill-equipped either to reform the political system or inspire the voters. This is a key point I've had to explain to my colleagues many times : in politics you have to be able to inspire and persuade people, to carry them with you - you cannot just act against their will.
What this does not mean is that we're doomed to suffer from corrupt, post-truth politicians forever. It only means that scientists becoming politicians right now is not a magic bullet. The solutions are much more complex than that - if you want to reform politics, you must reform the entire body politic, not just replace the politicians. You have to look not only at the rulers but also the ruling system and the ruled themselves.
Getting the electorate to be more rational obviously isn't easy. Because even when people are well-educated and well-off, they don't necessarily act rationally. Drumpf voters were not particularly impoverished or poorly educated. Tory [Brexit] voters include the very wealthy with (supposedly) literally the best education money can by... It is absolutely essential to recognise the strength of the inherent irrational nature of the human condition, even if it's impossible to fully apprehend it. This is why you cannot simply give people more information or more rational leaders and expect to get a more rational society as a result; ideologies are not so lightly thrown aside.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html
Rhys Taylor Have you considered putting the argument on Trellis?
ReplyDeleteFrom Night Watch by Terry Pratchett:
ReplyDeleteThere were plotters, there was no doubt about it. Some had been ordinary people who'd had enough. Some were young people with no money who objected to the fact that the world was run by old people who were rich. Some were in it to get girls. And some had been idiots as mad as Swing, with a view of the world just as rigid and unreal, who were on the side of what they called 'the people'.
Vimes had spent his life on the streets, and had met decent men and fools and people who'd steal a penny from a blind beggar and people who performed silent miracles or desperate crimes every day behind the grubby windows of little houses, but he'd never met The People.
People on the side of The People always ended up dissapointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness.
And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.
I think you are underestimating the politicking and manipulation that exists in academia... Normal politics will regret getting scientists into politics. I fear super-predators...
ReplyDeleteBob Calder I don't know, what's Trellis ?
ReplyDeleteAndré Esteves Dunno, I've see quite a bit of the politicking in academia. I've seen abject racism, misogyny, manipulation, favouritism and duplicity that I wouldn't have believed. And that's in astronomy, where financial concerns and positions of authority are minimal. I'm inclined to believe this is far worse in a situation where one's job depends on being duplicitous.
ReplyDeleteThere are never any magic bullets. I do not consider this business about scientists being untrained or unsuited to leadership or lacking in rhetorical skills anything but a bizarre and unsupportable axiom. (hands up) I will grant that you believe it to be this way. But if a comedian like Al Franken can become a well-respected senator, scientists can do it.
ReplyDeleteNow here's why we see so few hardcore highly educated professionals in politics: they can't afford to get off the gerbil wheel. I couldn't possibly get off this gerbil wheel: it would kill my career and I presume it would kill yours. It has nothing to do with temperament and everything to do with the careers we've chosen. Two years off the gerbil wheel and I'd be starting over.
Rhys Taylor Trellis is the AAAS social website that sections and committees use to communicate.
ReplyDeletePolitics don't belong in science and scientists in politics invite that sort of corruption.
ReplyDeleteObservations:
ReplyDelete#1. There are workshops in policy and communications for scientists pretty much constantly.
#2. There are state level appointments that bring scientists into policy decisionmaking. This subjects them to intense pressure to make science conform to the fantasy lives of politicians.
There has to be a grey area where scientists communicate to politicians - there's no way to avoid that. A perfect separation of politics and science is impossible. However in the UK we try to maintain the Haldane principle.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_principle
David Lazarus true.
ReplyDeleteBut what happens if the scientist virtuously stay out of politics but the politicians cheat and inject politics into science? Are the scientists supposed to just stand there looking aghast, wringing their hands?
Winchell Chung Indeed. That's why I support a fair bit of political activism from scientists, especially the "March on Science". Ordinarily I might be wary but the current political climate over there is so far gone it demands extreme measures. In the case where politicians are already sticking their noses into science, it has little choice but to fight back.
ReplyDeleteOK. Advise, but do not bend no matter how much pressure a politician puts on you. It is not the politician's place to tell the scientists what is right or wrong. Math does not lie, but politicians can and have pressured scientists to fudge the data to push their own agenda.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus a strategy which unfortunately results in lots of scientists getting their funding cut, but there isn't any alternative.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Rostand
ReplyDeleteGone are the days of Jean Rostand that opened his own lab at home because he thought academia too political... (European academy was and still is in some countries connected to politics)
You should have seen the mailing from UCS today. HUGE red letters. Talk about a political bunch. And yes, they are in my section. :)
ReplyDeleteWinchell Chung - Yes. Which is ludicrous! Many great scientists have been screwed by governments, The Church and/or corporations. Two big ones in relatively modern times are Nikola Tesla and Royal Raymond Rife.
ReplyDelete