The picture of the truth-seeking scientists sitting alone in their ivory towers is often used negatively. Instead, science is supposed to drive society forward, to create impact, provide solutions, and to be the basis of growth and prosperity. I argue that this expectation is detrimental for science and society. It creates a toxic scientific system with too many incentives to break the rules, and it hinders society to face its most important challenges. Seeking the truth and nothing but the truth is enough of a societal responsibility for science. At the end, some practical suggestions how to conquer back the ivory tower are given.
Back to the Ivory Tower
Philipp Strasberg
This is a pleasing criticism of today's science, it reads very well. From my point of view, the problem has even been presented very defensively, one could criticize so many things even more clearly.
However, if one then thinks more carefully, questions arise.
Is it possible to talk about "the science" as it has been done in the text? Or are there not many sciences? For instance, the applied sciences, whose goal may not be the search for truth at all, but the application of scientific methods for some purpose. And if the scientific method is just not appropriate, then one simply continues there unscientifically. Or the humanities, which sometimes have an imagined dogma ('equality', 'sustainability' ...) as a criterion, and try to approximate reality to the dogma.
You imply that science is a pure, objective search for truth, but factually you would have to acknowledge reality: The majority does not see it that way.
And hasn't that always been the case?
In this respect, in the end, I don't really understand your proposed solutions either, because who should want to implement them, and why? When the vast majority wants something else. So, in the end, your text seems almost a bit contradictory: You describe the reality very well and clearly, but you do not accept this reality as truth about science or what presents itself as science today. Although to you, the truth is the highest goal, which I appreciate very much!
Maybe we have to look for another strategy.
Arved Huebler
Hello BronzeLamprey. Thanks for your feedback.
Writing that the idea of "science" (as an abstract concept) should be about truth (and only truth) does not imply that the "scientific system" (as it is practiced today) complies with this idea. I think I write quite clearly that there is nowadays a big difference between science as it theoretically should be and science as it is practiced.
My claim is that this difference (which creates many troubles as I argue) could be tamed if we return to the idea "science = truth only".
In contrast to you, I do not think that the idea "science = truth" (without "only") conflicts with the majority view. Even the "blackest sheeps" often declare that they act in a scientifically good manner. However, the point is precisely that the view "science = truth + other goals" creates these black sheeps, among other problems. This could be avoided by returning to "science = truth only".
6 days later
quote
The picture of the truth-seeking scientists sitting alone in their ivory towers is often used negatively. Instead, science is supposed to drive society forward, to create impact, provide solutions, and to be the basis of growth and prosperity. I argue that this expectation is detrimental for science and society. It creates a toxic scientific system with too many incentives to break the rules, and it hinders society to face its most important challenges. Seeking the truth and nothing but the truth is enough of a societal responsibility for science. At the end, some practical suggestions how to conquer back the ivory tower are given.
end of quote
Excuse me, the ivory tower meme was necessary earlier, but now we have the world wide web in many places, and also the the ability to send PDF books for a comparative nominal sum every where
I.e. we no longer NEED IT.
Did we need it earlier ? ABSOLUTELY
Now technology is making it a bit dated..