“Science and democracy have always been twins.”

http://nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27essa.html?ref=science

by jdnier • 17 years ago

10 9 17 years ago

jdnier• 17 years ago

An interesting essay, excited by President Obama's pledge to “restore science to its rightful place,” that considers the relationship between science and democracy and how the health of one influences strongly the other.

“If there is anything democracy requires and thrives on, it is the willingness to embrace debate and respect one another and the freedom to shun received wisdom. Science and democracy have always been twins.”

nazgulnarsil2• 17 years ago

this is democracy blatantly taking credit for capitalism.

nazgulnarsil2• 17 years ago

democracy is social constructivism. this is diametrically opposed to science. it doesn't matter how many people disagree with you if you're right.

yters2• 17 years ago

So that's why a democratic Athens killed Socrates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

There's a good reason the USA isn't a democracy.

olavk• 17 years ago

Socrates wasn't a scientist. We don't really know what he was, but presumably he was a political philosopher and metaphysician.

point• 17 years ago

This is the most stupid essay I have read in my life. Most scientific advances have not been made in democratic governments - The old Islamic Discoveries, the old Chinese Discoveries, the old European Discoveries were all made under King-like dynasties. A huge number of inventions were made under Fascist Germany.

Democracy is in fact really bad for science, because in a democratic society, you need to convince many people you are right. In a fascist or monarchist society, you just need to convince the king.

And then stupidly equating this with china - china is where it is right now because of a very strong central government with tight control. Without this government, the chinese people would have collapsed into civil war and split up - it would not have been at the level it is at now at all.

Old men with limited experience should not go meddling with systems they do not understand and that seem to be working, based on their ideology. The alternative could mean the death of millions - look what happened when they thought to bring 'democracy' to Iraq.

yters2• 17 years ago

That is not a good model either. Sure, you get a lot of problems solved, but they are all very immediate and pragmatic. Plus, America would have been defeated by China, USSR, Nazi Germany, etc. if this were true.

The best way is to decouple science from politics as much as possible.

DanielBMarkham• 17 years ago

I had to downmod you, sorry.

Most scientific advances have been made in the last century, nay the last fifty years. The pace is exponentially accelerating. That means, unfortunately for your case, that most advances have been made under modern goverments, i.e., democracies (or rather democratic republics)

Then you kind of went on a tear about old people mucking in things which they don't understand, which I have no idea what you are talking about -- funding of research? Selection of who gets grant money? Retirement home members playing WoW?

Sorry for the downmod, but posts that do not parse and are obviously false should go further down the list. I'd give you one or the other, but not both.

known• 17 years ago

Democracy = Wisdom of Crowds

Science = Meritocracy

“Science and democracy have always been twins.”

Related Stories