lördag 7 juli 2012

Solidaritet - funderingar i Krakow

Jag är nyss hemkommen från 6th European Congress of Mathematics i Krakow, Polen. Där fanns många spännande personer att träffa och en det bjöds på en rad intressanta föredrag om nya rön och forskningsframsteg inom matematiken; därtill lyckades jag faktiskt själv också hålla ett någorlunda vettigt föredrag på temat Why the empirical sciences need statistics so desperately.1 Utöver föredragen organiserades en rad angelägna paneldiskussioner. I en av dem, rubricerad "What is expected from European learned societies?", gjorde en av paneldeltagarna, en viss Wolfgang Eppenschwandtner från lobbyorganisationen Initiative for Science in Europe, ett uttalande som fick mig att vilja protestera. Diskussionen spretade dock redan i så många andra riktningar att jag inte ville göra saken värre med ännu ett sidospår, utan höll tillbaka.

For the benefit of Wolfgang Eppenschwandtner (and in the hope of provoking a response), here is my intended comment, in English:
    I felt a bit provoked by the very last comment in Wolfgang Eppenschwandtner's presentation, namely what he said about how, for the common good of attracting as much funding to science as possible, we ought to show solidarity with other sciences and refrain from saying things like "sociology is not real science" or "too much of the science budget is directed to the engineering sciences". Will you allow me, Dr Eppenschwandtner, to be a little bit provocative in return?

    Your talk of solidarity envokes the image of science as a special interest, with the overall goal of attracting as much funding as possible. But this cannot be the ultimate goal. Science (especially tax-funded science) exsits for the benefit of society-at-large and of mankind, whence loyalty towards society and mankind must trump solidarity with the scientific community. If (hypothetically) I find that sociology has been invaded by researchers with a view of ontology and epistemology that effectively prevents them from doing real science, or if (again hypothetically) I find that microbiologists are conducting research that is putting humanity at risk, then I must speak out.2 If I refrain from doing so (out of solidarity or for whatever reason) then I am failing in my duty towards the general public, and in my role as a scientist, an intellectual and a citizen. So thank you, Dr Eppenschwandtner, for your advice, but don't count on my unreserved solidarity!

Fotnoter

1) Resans starkaste och mest omskakande upplevelse hade dock inget med matematik att göra.

2) För att undvika att detta missuppfattas som ett försvar av klimatförnekeri såsom det utövas t.ex. av Peter Stilbs och av Ingemar Nordin, skyndar jag mig att tillägga följande. Det slags kritik jag förespråkar är sådan som är sakligt välgrundad.

3 kommentarer:

  1. Att hålla med endast av solidaritetssjäl är väl av noll värde vilket ämnet eller syftet än må vara.

    SvaraRadera
  2. Dear Olle,

    Sweden, as any other (democratic) European country, builds on solidarity of its citizens. Nobody would ever think that this means that Swedes have to approve all behaviour their compatriots -- or to approve decisions of Swedish institutions. Companies are in fierce competition for a greater market share -- and still industry as a whole has developed very efficient mechanisms to make a case for their common interest.
    What's then bad with scientists standing together for their common interest?

    We need solidarity as opposed to ignorance or lack of understanding of other scientific disciplines. I'm not calling for unreserved approval of all activities, individual researchers or groups may be held responsible for.

    What I understand with solidarity is that it has to build on a common understanding of scientific activity and its role for humankind, on a common cause to defend and on common values.

    There is certainly no universal authoritative source for these values, and you will rarely find them spelt out.
    However it my perception these values include key principles such as the strength of arguments in contrast to undisputed believe, the importance of sound methodology and scientific rigour, the necessity for experiments and observations to be reproducible, the principle that theories are build on evidence and thought, that scientific work is to be challenged by peers; more general the prevalence of the community-driven approach, meaning that progress builds on the work of others and that interaction with peers is a matter of course, but also the observation that science is driven by curiosity and by passion to solve problems, eager to accrue knowledge and the extend borders.

    These values are exactly not compatible with your two examples. I won't comment too much further on your point with "ontology and epistemology that effectively prevents them from doing real science", because it is not fully clear to me what you are referring to. But a common understanding of science definitely includes ethical and responsibly towards mankind.

    Therefore you - and all scientists and citizens are right to be concerned with ethical questions and developments that undermine and threaten "the values of science".
    What I am calling for is solidarity *within* a framework of a common understanding of science and scholarity.

    SvaraRadera
  3. THanks, Wolfgang, for commenting - I'm glad I managed to provoke a response from you! Of course, like you, I am opposed to "ignorance or lack of understanding of other scientific disciplines". But the opposite of that, in my mind, is not "solidarity" but "informed discussion".

    SvaraRadera