I have long believed that the present ills of the world are not based in a deficiency in the application of science. To be sure, many ills are being addressed by science. Insofar as one of our current global crises, climate change, has been accelerated by man-made innovation (harvesting and burning fossil fuel), it is argued that science causes many ills. The list may include all of the innovations of war that kill more efficiently or even have potential to wipe out civilization (think nuclear war).
Other than unintended consequences of science and technology, we think of ethics, religion, and other realms not associated with science as domains for governing interpersonal relationships. These arenas seem important in determining all domains of human activity, including the choices for applying science and technology. It is in this sense that I have agreed with others on the need for attention to domains outside of science.
But now I want to advocate for the importance of science in these areas as well. This is not about applying scientific methods to social ills, as in the fields of psychology, political science, and sociology. This is about the importance of science as a way of thinking.
When we separate science and confine it to the study of the physical and natural world, we demean the fundamental thought that precedes the science. That is, science demands a disinterested and unfailingly logical approach to observation. If more of our activities were more rooted in this disciplined approach, we would become accustomed to questioning causes of ills. We could become more inventive in our politics and become more aware of beneficial and harmful policies.
Perhaps this idea harkens to one of my favorite quotes from Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 15.
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.The implication is that government is the dispassionate opposition to unreasonable and unjust passion. When collective action is needed, policy agreed on all sides is a mandate. When action is in dispute, a compromise can result. Or else, no action is taken. This is the logic of limited government.
Returning to this idea about science and government, our collective state can be seen as a living organism, in a continual state of adaptation. Insofar as dynamics entail social interactions among its members, including unpredictable human passions, scientific method will not produce the kind of truths or knowledge that are obtained in the physical world. Still, the method is useful in keeping collective action attentive to reason and justice.
In a related essay, I will posit that the primary political consideration before all debates in government is defining the sphere of government. We collectively perceive injustices, disparities, and inefficiencies, and the fundamental everlasting debate must always be, which of these are the domain of collective (government) action? When all agree there is a problem, there is a bias in our society that the most efficient path to an answer is private enterprise. That is, a recognized problem can be assigned a certain value, and that value can be addressed with a commercial answer without the need of government, or in some cases, with a modest government subsidy. If the problem is not thus solved, it qualifies as one in need of a government solution. These are to be minimized for many reasons. First, it is a slow mechanism, and the problem will fester and grow while awaiting the government response. Second, it is expensive to establish a government agency to address problems. Third, government agencies are susceptible to perpetuation. Once the problem is addressed, the purpose of the agency should disappear. If we are attentive to the primary political consideration, government agencies could be dismantled as well as created.
No comments:
Post a Comment