Your "long gone" can be traced to students calling the shots and
deciding the curriculum. ("The Closing of the American Mind- How
Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of
Today's Students" By Allan Bloom/Foreward by Saul Bellow-1987)On Jul 3, 7:02 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I do need to say that I was re-reading some old stuff and trying to > come up with a new twist for an article. As a practitioner my > experience runs with what Molly says in terms of funded science - but > also that the more internal processes are not democratic and, of > course, purposely exclude ignorance and consensus as it is formed in > that. There was a notion in academe that we proceed in leadership > only via a primus interpares (leader amongst equals) - but this is > long gone. > > Democracy as we experience it in voting seems to me to have collapsed > and will look as rotten in history as the Athenian one. Very few > scientists vote Republican and most of my colleagues are left-minded > in the UK - but we don't hold marxist views - it's more a disdain that > economics work at all. The idea of people uneducated in science > having say in what theories are or taking observations is completely > out, as is being swayed by rhetoric. > > I'm not in favour of elite rule, but would favour something less crass > than whatever we have. > > On Jul 3, 12:18 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
