Slashdot Mirror
Why Scientists Should Have a Greater Voice On Global Security
Lasrick writes "Physicist Lawrence Krauss has a great piece in the NY Times today about the lack of influence scientists wield on global security issues, to the world's detriment. He writes, 'To our great peril, the scientific community has had little success in recent years influencing policy on global security. Perhaps this is because the best scientists today are not directly responsible for the very weapons that threaten our safety, and are therefore no longer the high priests of destruction, to be consulted as oracles as they were after World War II. The problems scientists confront today are actually much harder than they were at the dawn of the nuclear age, and their successes more heartily earned. This is why it is so distressing that even Stephen Hawking, perhaps the world’s most famous living scientist, gets more attention for his views on space aliens than his views on nuclear weapons. Scientists' voices are crucial in the debates over the global challenges of climate change, nuclear proliferation and the potential creation of new and deadly pathogens. But unlike in the past, their voices aren't being heard.'"
An increasing number of politicans will only listen to the scienticians if what they're saying supports the conclusions they've already arrived at.
They're not interested in facts, just their own ideology.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
To much politics in science today to trust them with decisions.
There is a lot of junk out there being passed off as science.
Many scientists are available for sale to the highest bidder.
This has caused a loss of trust in the scientific community by the general public and the leadership.
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
-- Isaac Asimov
It has been a long time since anyone existed who could only call himself (or herself) a "scientist." The term is now a generic way to refer to people whose actual work is in any of a staggering number of highly specialized fields. There is some acknowledgment of this in TFA, which states (correctly) that many of today's greatest scientific minds don't work directly in the fields related to the things that affect our security. To use the article's own example, Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist: he doesn't work on nuclear weapons.
But for a given question, what grounds are there to privilege the viewpoints of those whose expertise is not in a field of direct relevance to that question? On questions concerning nuclear weapons, for example, why should Stephen Hawking's viewpoint be held as equivalent to a nuclear physicist's viewpoint? For that matter, why should his viewpoint be held as superior to the viewpoint of anyone else who is not a nuclear physicist?
Scientists are specialized brains who devote a significant majority of their life and time to one discipline or sub-discipline. A specialist is good for explaining how something works in layman's terms, a generalist is better at integrating this information into other specalist's explanations to mesh out something that works. A scientific council with general recommendations and upper/lower bounds to possible solutions? Great. A scientist deciding the solution outright? No sir.
Scientists don't have a good track record on setting policy. They tend to get too focused on their own little area and end up making bad decisions. And that doesn't even take into consideration what can happen when the wrong scientist gets in control, if you remember the Russian horrors of Lysenkoism.
Any time you create a process whereby people can acquire power, that process will be abused. Remember the fighting between Oppenheimer and Teller? It can get much, much worse than that.
If scientists have more power than average people, then everyone will rush to redefine themselves as scientists, like this guy. Instead of marketers, we'll have "social researchers." Instead of accountants we'll have "capital flow researchers." And I'm not going to stay out of the game, I'll definitely be a computer scientist, not a programmer. Soon the term "scientist" will lose its meaning.
If scientists want to affect policy in a democratic society, they need to get better at explaining. Albert Einstein reportedly said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." It may sound excessive, but remember that's what Feynman did with advanced theoretical physics. You can do it. Of course, in a democratic society, if everyone collectively wants to shoot themselves in the foot, there's not always much you can do about it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Perhaps that indicates a problem with politics rather than scientists.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
their tests for success and advancement are radically different than those in the political space
This is exactly why they are supremely qualified to work on policy. Scientists and politicans have different tests for success because only scientists are concerned about truth and effectiveness. Politicians are concerned about getting reelected and doing favors for their cronies. It is actually politicians who are hoplessly unqualified to work on policy.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Four years ago a candidate for President promised to "restore science to it's rightful place" - why hasn't it happened? He got elected (and re-elected) to office on that pormise (among others)?
Ken
Effectiveness being a weasel word. Effective based on what criteria?
Obviously those criteria should be set out in the law itself. Every law should have a goal, and specify a way for evaluating progress towards that goal.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!