“The doubters and charlatans should not be left to make the running”
Norbert Robers spoke to philosopher Dr. Eva-Maria Jung from the Center for the Philosophy of Science about the dangers presented by politicians and citizens who are sceptical about science.
With the Science Marches which are taking place on April 22, scientists want to protest against what in their view is a growing hostility towards science. Do you share their worries?
Large sections of the population continue to rely on science, for example when they buy a car or take clinically tested medicines. In contrast to this, however, the situation has become more critical in some political discussions, for example about climate protection. There are individual politicians, or other people in the public eye, who try to exploit science for their own ends.
So they misuse science for political purposes?
Yes, it’s hard to escape this impression – for example, in the case of President Donald Trump. He evidently trusts only those scientists who support his political and economic aims. This is a fundamental attack on the independence and freedom of science.
But the politically motivated misuse of science is not a new phenomenon, is it?
No, it isn’t – just think of the Nazi period in Germany, when many scientists emigrated from Germany for precisely these reasons while others hitched their own wagon to the Nazis’ agenda. Current developments stand out, though, because this phenomenon of scepticism towards science is spreading in several countries. In Germany, too: just think of the discussions about alternative medicines, with private educational institutes competing with universities.
You could also take the view that politicians and presidents come and go, but the dependability of science remains.
No, because such a defensive attitude might have unpleasant consequences. Donald Trump is no philosopher who can underpin his rejection of, or scepticism towards, science with a substantiated ideology. He simply doesn’t take seriously the ideals which science has. In fact, he ignores them. Some sections of the population evidently applaud this, because it’s one in the face for what they see as an elite class.
But an elite which clearly does not always work in a sound, unimpeachable way …
You’re quite right. No one’s advocating that all scientists should always be blindly trusted. There are often doubts about certain results, and things are also forged in the field of science. But that is precisely what is at the heart of science: engaging in disputes over ideas, registering doubts, struggling to find the truth, and openly calling a forgery a forgery. But none of this should go so far as to attack the idea of science in itself. In science it is not – at least, ideally – opinions that play a decisive role, but facts. An interest in knowledge is what is important – not personal interests or a career.
The Internet has umpteen forums and blogs, in which thousands of pseudo-scientists proclaim their sensitivities and their view of things. To what extent do these contribute to this kind of scepticism towards science?
They certainly amplify the problem. But I would first like to point out the positive aspects of the Internet. It contains a very large amount of correct information which would not otherwise be available to a lot of people. On the other hand, it’s true that a differentiation between the expert and the layman is no longer made in many cases. I think this is certainly problematic.
Are the Science Marches a correct and appropriate response on the part of the scientific world?
Yes, because they will be sending out a signal – and an unusual one, to boot. Scientists must draw the public’s attention to the possible consequences. This includes pointing out that there are disputes over some issues and that there are many things we still do not know. But such openness is no threat. On the contrary, the doubters and charlatans should not be left to make the running all by themselves.