TRIGLAV CIRCLE, MEETING OF 29 JUNE-1 JULY 2018, POUSSIGNOL, BLISMES, FRANCE

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE HUMAN SPIRIT

 REPORT

The agenda   proposed two themes for discussion. The first was the situation of scientists  with distinction between scientists living under authoritarian regimes and scientists working in a corporate culture. The questions addressed include: What ethical conflicts faced by scientists (in authoritarian regimes) and what are their options? Should science and its results be considered a common good—belonging to humanity? Given that most governments value their sovereign power above other values and that the same sovereignty renders world governments  virtually powerless , is the conscience of the scientist the principal protection against misuse of scientific research and can they control the use of their discoveries?  Taking a specific case, what lessons can be drawn from the epic struggle of farmers (…) against Monsanto and other chemical or pharmaceutical corporations?  What effective means are available to governments to check the use of scientific research when the public interest is threatened?

The second theme was Technological “progress” and transcendent ideals? This questions was inspired by the late Japanese philosopher Tomonobo Imamichi: Instrumental rationality undermines transcendent ideals and spurs technological progress to primacy over other human aims(…) Today’s goals are circumscribed by the horizons of technological know-how and power (…) The culture of modernity inverted the classical logical structuring of human intention.”Comments were solicited on this text, notably on the notion of “transcendent ideals” whose “horizons” extend beyond the limitations of “technical know-how and power.” It was noted that the “liberal tradition offers some protections to citizens by limiting the power of public institutions.”  In today’s  liberal cultural context, notable for its mix of scientism and obscurantism, questions about sources of knowledge should influence policy making.

Theme 1 discussion:

To give concreteness to this discussion a  documentary film was shown to participants. It was produced by the Elisabeth  Raiser about her father, Karl Freiderich von Weizsäcker, an astro physicist working in the

A distinction ought to be made between natural sciences – physics, chemistry, biology. astronomy…- and human sciences, that include economics, sociology, psychologyand anthropology. The firsts can claim objectivity. Their methods are universal and replicable; they are not dependent on their social contexts, nor on the philosophical or political views of the scientists  that practice them. These “exact” sciences, therefore, do not allow easily ethical concerns to enter into their problematic. They are seen as value-free, as morally neutral. It follows that the results and the applications of these sciences, the products, the techniques and the technologies that are derived from them, are also seen as value-free. And these applications of natural sciences impose themselves. They have an aura of inevitability that places them outside the political and moral realms.

Human sciences, on the other end, cannot escape ethical issues. Their practitioners can master rigor in their observations and reasoning but objectivity is out of reach, for three reasons: the personal philosophy of the practitioners cannot be set aside; the subjects at hand are not amenable to unquestionable conclusions; and, the applications of these sciences, especially the live sciences, raise deeply controversial issues. Hence, for instance, the relatively recent emergence of bioethics, a discipline looking at the ethical issues generated by research in biology and its applications, notably in medicine. Hence also the creation in a number of countries and at the international level of various committees and councils on the same subject.

All sciences, it was emphasized, whether natural or human, and their applications, raise ethical and philosophical questions. The “neutrality” of natural sciences is an illusion inherited from scientism, or the belief that scientific and technological developments are in themselves sources of a progress that will ensure peace and happiness in the world. Be it in the destructive power of weaponry or in the damages inflicted to the earth, this illusion has had and continues to have dramatic consequences. It is a necessity and a collective challenge  to bring  to fore  ethical considerations and spiritual insights with respect to the natural sciences.

It was noted that a step in this direction was the merger in 2018 of the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the International Social Sciences Council (ISSC) to form the International Science Council (ISC). The ISC, with its headquarters in Paris and three regional offices, is a non-governmental organization and the largest global organization of this type. Quoting its site, “the vision of the Council is to advance science as a public good. Scientific knowledge, data and expertise must be universally accessible and its benefits universally shared. The practice of science must be inclusive and equitable, also in opportunities for scientific education and capacity development.” One of the five points of its mission is “defends the free and responsible practice of science” and another one  “speaks for the value of all science and evidence-informed decision making.”

Also mentioned lwas the indispensable role of education. The example was given of a brilliant physicist who after years of experience in research has concluded that the only way to who. Too many scientists, for example in the sort of changes in the curricula of schools and universities would be necessary to help create a culture where all sciences and their applications would have a close relationship with philosophy, especially ethics?