I
was getting tired of the sterile science v. religion debate. I was looking for
another dyad and most fortuitously I landed on one.
It
is now, officially, science v. politics.
The
questions to be addressed at the debate are varied. One of them goes, how
should science and politics interact? This is the crux of an article I read in The Guardian [1].
Let
us agree that it is mutual exploitation that exists between science and
politics. Any government, going beyond politics yet inseparable from it, wants
the seal of approval for its plans from science, however misconstrued the
latter becomes in the process. Why else do you think a science degree course in astrology in universities was mooted in
India some years ago (I do not know its status now)?
Science,
on the other hand uses politics to sustain itself. One must read Steven
Weinberg’s (a Nobel Prize winner for Physics) book Dreams of a Final Theory.
The
book was published in the middle of a furious competition between the various
states of the US for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), then envisaged
as the biggest, baddest particle accelerator. And, wouldn’t you know, Weinberg
was at University of Texas at Austin when Texas was one of the shortlisted
states (the other I recall as Pennsylvania, if I am not wrong) for situating
the high energy particle physics laboratory. There was also a vigorous debate
about why the US should go in for an expensive science toy (about a billion
USD) at all. Experimental physicists were aghast at this impudence of the
society and governance.
They
brought in their big guns to influence politicians and you do not get a bigger
gun than Steven Weinberg! You must read the book, an excellent book yet a sales
book – selling SSC to the politicians. As you can see, this exploitation is a
two way street.
Does
that make politics and science equal? Perish the thought. Whatever science might be, it is not
value-neutral. True, there is always the potential for science being above the
fray, but in reality there is not one instance that potential has been
realized. Please understand that I treat mathematics as beyond science. I have
not argued with myself whether mathematics is value-neutral, if that has any
meaning.
But
politics does not even have that potential as it is inextricably value-based.
Therefore, in my humble opinion, politics and science are not balanced on the scale
of being value-laden. The former is heavier. Yet, they are mutual exploiters.
How
does this affect the mutual exploitation? A politician can, and often does rely
on science to validate a position, usually implicitly political, she has taken.
However, scientists do not approach politicians for a certificate on a
scientific matter. Science has, within its own ranks, its own politicians (Isaac
Newton and Robert Hooke, for example) but the reference here is to politicians
in governance.
But,
for the overall good of the society, science and politics cannot pass each
other by like two ships in the middle of the night. They need to interact, in
full glare of public knowledge and publicity, and pretty much as equals. This
is what happened in the case of both astrology as science in India, and SSC in
Texas, USA.
In
my opinion, science won the Indian bout and lost the fisticuffs in Texas
(George Bush saw to it that SSC was dropped). But, beyond this apparent
balancing of wins and losses, we must think how science must find its voice inside
the parliament and other institutions of governance. But, it must also be that
science must not be allowed to run riots, as may happen, with the support of
the almost unlimited financial powers of biotech corporates, in shoving down
our throats Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) giving the go by to prudent regulations
and monitoring. No, I am not saying that we should shun GMOs, only that we give
cautious respect to science and listen to the voices of people, that of the elected
politicians in the parliament and elsewhere.
This
is the kind of the scenario of checks and balances between and among the essential
endeavors of various segments of society that should play out to achieve a
dynamic society running safely.
This
can happen if only the electorate knows how to elect people with a scientific
bent of mind. This is the core difference between the religion-science and
politics-science dyads. In the former there is no question of checks and
balances. It is religion running amok, always and alas forever.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
1.
Science
and politics: chalk and cheese?, Adam Smith, The Guardian, May 4, 2012
4 comments:
Scientists should get acquainted with the arts/science of governance. I agree there should be some science input in politics. More than actual science what one needs is the scientific temper. When we have people like MM Joshi,a physics provessor, believe that astrology is science
What we have done is to choose some scientists who probably did some good research in the past and crown them as our policymakers. It is their idea of science that is shoved down the throats of the country.
The solution you suggest - that people with a scientific bent of mind should be elected to power - may not be feasible. Simply because such people may not know what to do with political power!
Matheikal, may be it did not come out right. What I meant was the electorate must choose the person who has scientific temper (as mentioned by Palahali) from among the contestants. A person with scientific temper is more likely to change course if proven wrong. This cannot but be good for the society. Even repeat mistakes will tend to converge munificently.
RE
You are absolutely right pala ... one of our scientific greats is well known for establishing parallels between QM and Advaita, a sustained campaign!
What else can you expect?
One is pure philosophical speculation and the other hard predictive science; yet this biggie conencted these two vigorously.
RE
Post a Comment