Science develops differently to democracy. You can't vote for the science you want. It must be true, so it is never a question of what is popular. Science is not democratic. How does science go forward? How do the theories of science become accepted as true? We think it can, it appears to work. So, can science also offer a way of life? Can we have a scientific politics? Can we live a scientific way?
There is an idea of the social environment
in which science can flourish. There are the Universities, and sometimes
projects, like the Manhattan Project, and their equivalent, where science happens,
is encouraged, and it gets results. To succeed, science needs a lot of tools
for learning, and a lot of debating, discussion, and argument amongst
scientists, this need must be met somehow (if you want the fruits of scientific
achievements). At the same time, it can also be quite a solitary pursuit by
individuals, like Einstein in his earlier life. But even this requires the background
of the scientific community and its history.
Christmas 2023 the film ‘Oppenheimer’ was out.
In the story, the lead character discussed Marx’s Capital briefly with
his communist friend. He said he read it all but was not sure about the idea
that “all ownership is theft”, she ‘corrected’ him to say: “all property”. It
is sad that the script had to make Oppenheimer say something stupid about Marx.
As many will know, the concept that property is theft is from Proudhon and not
Marx. The film also struggled with its depiction of scientists and the way they
collaborated, in every sense of that term.