Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
famous philosopher of science Karl Popper, advocate of the 'open society',
was republican in this sense. For him, science would be at the heart of
such a society, not just because it embodied republican ideals but because
it thereby produced a plethora of knowledges that helped instigate social
dynamism (Popper, 1945). Its power would thus be productive, variously
useful for most or all social constituencies because it was tethered to the
needs of no one elite or majority group. In his rather too optimistic view, by
applying the 'critical attitude', scientists would together resist the 'excesses'
of communitarianism and liberalism in their own epistemic domain. I say
'too optimistic' because Popper assumed scientists would be 'spontaneous'
republicans if left to their own devices. He devoted too little attention to
whether external regulation might be required if the republican spirit was
not to be honoured in the breach.
19
What form might such regulation take in order to make good on republi-
can ideals? Before I offer an example or two, there's one last study task you
might usefully undertake.
Study Task:
Representative democracies have a well-known procedure at the
national and sub-national levels designed to permit change (or continuity) in
the agendas pursued by elected rulers. The procedure is the election. Think
now about the various sciences of human and non-human nature. Can you
conceive of any new procedures that will permit public engagement with
these sciences in a
systematic
way, as opposed to
ad hoc
arrangements like an
occasional consensus conference?
Among Fuller's most radical answers to my question is that the state-
science relationship be reformatted in virtually every country that calls itself
a democracy. He proposes that central governments relinquish their power
to influence the focus and content of scientific research, except for a few
agreed areas of strategic importance. Fuller suggests that through tax breaks
and other government-sanctioned measures, various institutions (indepen-
dent universities, NGOs, charities, firms, etc.) should be free to conduct
more scientific research than currently. The state would aim to level the
playing field so that the wealthiest institutions don't produce science that,
by virtue of its sheer scale, eclipses that conducted by others. The state's
role would then be less to fund research from the taxpayer purse and more
to 'expose alternative scientific perspectives [and findings] once they have
been developed [independently]'. The state thus takes on the role of helping
to
distribute
, rather than indirectly
create
, scientific representations in order to
enrich public life (Fuller, 2000: 103-7). This could be done through a whole
network
of science shops. It would also involve making more visible
already
published findings
that, for whatever reason, have not been noticed in the
public domain. Mining the existing body of publicly available knowledge
would be as important as showcasing new scientific knowledge.
