There is a difference between democracy and the politics of a democratic society. As I see it, the agenda of the scientific community is more governed by politics than democracy, but it is lovely to think that democracy it its true sense, could prevail.
On Jul 2, 11:34 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Modern science has been regarded as both a model of democratic self- > governance and an activity requiring and facilitating democratic > practices in its supporting social context (Popper 1950, Bronowski > 1956). The only non-arbitrary way to defend judgments concerning > research agendas in the absence of absolute standards is through > democratic means of establishing collective preferences. Kitcher > (1993: 2001), thus, attempts to spell out procedures by which > decisions concerning what research directions to pursue can be made in > a democratic manner. The result, which he calls well-ordered science, > is a system in which the decisions actually made track the decisions > that would be a made by a suitably constituted representative body > collectively deliberating with the assistance of relevant information > (concerning, e.g., cost and feasibility) supplied by experts. > > I have never seen science as anything to do with democracy - democracy > is a form of government I despise and which I see as totally corrupt. > Democracy is based on presentation ahead of content and gives votes to > ignorance (originally race) and the means to glean votes to points of > control based on money. Any defenders of 'democracy' here? Other > than it just being better than worse forms of authoritarian control? > > Bronowski, Jacob. 1956. Science and Human Values. New York: Harper and > Bros. > Kitcher, Phillip. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science Without > Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions.Oxford: Oxford University Press. > –––. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford > University Press. > Popper, Karl. 1950. The Open Society and its enemies. Princeton, NJ: > Princeton University Press.
