Influences
From Political
Separate Hard Science
Edy P. Pierre, BA. MA. MPA
The Scientific Revolution is commonly dated from the mid-16th century to the late 17th century, approximately spanning from 1543, with the publication of [1]Nicolaus Copernicus's "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," to 1687, with Isaac Newton's "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica." This period marked a profound transformation in scientific thought and practice, characterized by significant developments in astronomy, physics, biology, and chemistry, fundamentally altering how humanity understood the natural world.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543): The revolution began with Copernicus, who challenged the geocentric model (Earth-centered universe) dominant since the time of Ptolemy. In "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" (1543), he proposed a heliocentric model, placing the Sun at the center of the universe. This idea was revolutionary, as it contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church and traditional Aristotelian physics. Tycho Brahe (1546-1601): Brahe made extensive and precise astronomical observations, which were critical for the later work of Johannes Kepler. Although Brahe himself did not fully endorse the heliocentric model, his data provided the empirical foundation necessary for its acceptance.
As The 17th Century: Scientific Revolution Accelerates: Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): Kepler built on Brahe's observations to formulate his three laws of planetary motion, which described the elliptical orbits of planets and provided a more accurate model of the solar system than both the geocentric and the Copernican models. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): Often called the "father of modern observational astronomy," Galileo used the newly invented telescope to make groundbreaking discoveries, such as the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, and the rugged surface of the Moon. His work supported the Copernican model and challenged Aristotelian physics. Galileo also conducted experiments in mechanics, studying motion and laying the groundwork for classical mechanics.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626): Bacon was a key figure in the development of the scientific method. He advocated for empirical, inductive approaches to scientific inquiry, emphasizing observation and experimentation over traditional deductive reasoning from established authorities. René Descartes (1596-1650): Descartes contributed to the revolution with his work in mathematics, philosophy, and science. He developed analytical geometry and promoted a mechanistic view of the universe, which influenced later scientific thought. His famous dictum "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") underscored the importance of doubt and questioning in scientific inquiry.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727): Newton's "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (1687) is often seen as the culmination of the Scientific Revolution. He formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, providing a comprehensive mathematical framework that unified the physical sciences. Newton's work marked the transition from the Scientific Revolution to the Enlightenment.
Conducting Scientific Research-During the early years of the Scientific Revolution, scientific research was markedly different from modern practices: Role of Natural Philosophy: Science was often referred to as "natural philosophy." It was an intellectual pursuit aimed at understanding the natural world, closely tied to philosophy and theology. Patronage and Academies: Research was typically funded by wealthy patrons or conducted under the auspices of royal courts and newly founded scientific academies. For example, the Royal Society in England (founded in 1660) and the French Academy of Sciences (founded in 1666) became important centers for scientific exchange and collaboration.
Empirical Observation and Experimentation: The period saw a shift from reliance on classical texts and philosophical speculation to empirical observation and experimentation. Scientists began to use instruments like the telescope and the microscope, expanding their ability to observe and measure the natural world. Mathematization of Nature: There was an increasing emphasis on the use of mathematics to describe natural phenomena. This trend was epitomized by Newton's work, which demonstrated the power of mathematical laws in explaining physical processes.
Publication and Communication: The invention of the printing press played a crucial role in disseminating new ideas. Scientists published their findings in books and journals, facilitating broader communication and critique. The correspondence between scientists, often facilitated by academies, was also vital for the exchange of ideas and data. Challenges and Controversies: Scientists often faced significant opposition from religious authorities and traditional scholars. Galileo's conflict with the Catholic Church, resulting in his trial and house arrest, is a notable example. Despite these challenges, the new scientific methods and discoveries gradually gained acceptance and laid the groundwork for modern science.
The impact of The Scientific Revolution fundamentally altered humanity's view of the universe and our place in it. It established the principles of empirical investigation, mathematical description, and systematic experimentation that remain the foundation of scientific practice today. The revolution also paved the way for the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, progress, and the value of scientific knowledge in improving human life.
The world is as divided today as it always has been before, and it is still dominated by political rivals while influenced by scientific evolutionary theories. How do we separate hard science from that which is polluted by political self-interests? Well, Distinguishing hard science from politically influenced science requires a multifaceted approach:
In addition, how do we make it very difficult or even preventing scientists from becoming political activists and stopping politicians from meddling in scientific research in order to preserving the integrity of science? Furthermore, we have to grapple with the challenges young scientists face in securing fundings and publishing their work are real, especially given the entanglement of many funding sources and institutions within political systems.
Troubling reality: whenever politicians need to sound influential and learned in order to solidifying their political career, adventure or platform, they use scientific data published by prominent scientists. Whenever scientists ventured with their career to be socially and intellectually influential, they quote policies. That's precisely a dichotomy. And so, the intertwining of science and politics has indeed created a dichotomy where each field leverages the other for influence and power. Scientific institutions seem to be unable maintaining clear boundaries and fostering a land field of integrity that can help manage this interplay.
For over two centuries, the world has been grappling with established ways and means to safeguarding scientific method, research and engineering attempts to make scientific research, data and finding free of subjective and personal self-made individuals’ opinion. Such as the establishing (The Peer Review and Reputable Journals): Rely on research published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals. These have rigorous standards and are less likely to publish politically biased studies. Replicability: Trust studies that have been replicated by independent researchers. The ability to reproduce results is a hallmark of sound science. (Funding Sources): Examine who funds the research. Studies funded by organizations with clear political or commercial interests may have biased outcomes.
(Expert Consensus): Look for consensus among experts in the field. If the majority of specialists agree on a topic, it's more likely to be solid science. Transparency: Favor studies that are transparent about their methodologies, data, and potential conflicts of interest. Distinguish Opinion from Data: Be cautious of studies that intermix data with opinion or political commentary. Pure science focuses on data and objective analysis. Scientific Institutions: Trust institutions known for their scientific rigor, such as major universities and reputable research institutes. Critical Thinking: Apply critical thinking to assess the validity of the findings. Look for logical consistency, sound methodology, and proper statistical analysis.
Employing these strategies, if possible, would have differentiated genuine scientific research from that which is influenced by political agendas. Many scientists argued that giving the fact that science keep changing, there can be no set consensus. Also, politic have had too much controls over funding. It seemed a no-win situation. Because scientific understanding evolves, and political influences on funding do complicate matters. Even with Long-Term Trends: Look for scientific consensus that holds over long periods. While individual studies might change, broader trends can provide a more stable understanding.
Interdisciplinary Collaboration: in order words, pay attention to research that involves collaboration across multiple disciplines and institutions, which can reduce individual biases. There (The Open Science Movement): Support and follow the open science movement, which advocates for open access to research data and methodologies, making it easier to verify results independently. Diverse Funding Sources: Favor research funded by a variety of sources, including non-profit organizations, international bodies, and independent grants, which can dilute the influence of any single political agenda.
In addition, The Independent Reviews: Seek out meta-analyses and systematic reviews that aggregate results from many studies, reducing the impact of outliers and biased research. Citizen Science and Public Involvement: Encourage and participate in citizen science projects where public involvement can increase transparency and reduce the potential for political manipulation. Critical Media Consumption: Be discerning about the media sources you trust for science news. Some outlets may have less bias and more rigorous standards for reporting scientific findings.
However, to this day, these strategies are all unable to eliminate all political self-interests influence, unable to assist in navigate the complex landscape of modern science and make more informed judgments about scientific claims. Even with Strong Ethical Guidelines: Establish and enforce strict ethical guidelines for scientists to ensure their work remains objective and free from political influence. Independent Funding Bodies: Create and support independent funding bodies that allocate research grants based on scientific merit rather than political considerations. These bodies should be transparent and accountable.
Institutional Autonomy: Ensure research institutions and universities have the autonomy to conduct research without political interference. This includes protecting academic freedom and promoting a culture of integrity and independence. Public Awareness and Education: Educate the public about the importance of independent scientific research and the dangers of political meddling. An informed public can advocate for policies that protect scientific integrity. Robust Peer Review: Strengthen the peer review process to ensure that research is evaluated based on scientific quality rather than political considerations. Peer review should be transparent and involve diverse, independent experts.
Whistleblower Protections: Implement and enforce strong protections for whistleblowers who expose political interference in scientific research. This can help safeguard the integrity of the research process. Clear Separation of Roles: Maintain a clear separation between scientific advisory roles and political advocacy. Scientists who engage in political activism should clearly distinguish these activities from their scientific work. Policy for Evidence-Based Decision Making: Advocate for policies that emphasize evidence-based decision making. Politicians should base policy decisions on robust scientific evidence rather than ideology. International Collaboration: Promote international collaboration in scientific research, which can reduce the impact of political influence from any single country. Collaborative projects are often subject to rigorous international standards.
Transparency in Research: Encourage transparency in research methodologies, data, and funding sources. Open access to research findings allows for greater scrutiny and reduces the likelihood of politically motivated research. By implementing these strategies, it is possible to reduce political interference in scientific research and maintain the objectivity and integrity of the scientific community. We already have all of these measures in place. If your are a young New graduate scientist, you cannot get published without funding and all of the organizations you just mentioned are tied within the fundamental spectrum of political systems.
There are Alternative Funding Sources: Crowdfunding: Platforms like Kickstarter and Experiment.com allow scientists to fund specific projects directly from public contributions. Non-Profit and Philanthropic Foundations: Organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Welcome Trust, and other private foundations often fund research projects, sometimes with fewer political strings attached. Industry Partnerships: Collaborating with industry partners can provide funding, though it's crucial to maintain transparency and ethical standards to avoid conflicts of interest. Preprint Servers: Platforms like arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv allow researchers to share their findings before peer review, increasing visibility and potentially attracting funding or collaboration opportunities.
Open Science and Open Access Journals: Open access journals, although sometimes having publication fees, allow broader dissemination of research without the same level of gatekeeping as traditional journals. Engaging with open science initiatives can help build a more transparent and collaborative research environment. Collaborative Networks: Building networks with other researchers, both domestically and internationally, can open up new opportunities for collaboration and funding. Participating in scientific conferences, workshops, and online forums can expand our professional network and increase visibility.
Grants and Fellowships for Early Career Researchers: Many organizations offer grants and fellowships specifically for early-career scientists, such as the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, the NIH Pathway to Independence Award, and the European Research Council Starting Grants. Interdisciplinary Research: Engaging in interdisciplinary research can sometimes open up funding opportunities from different sectors that are less politically constrained. Areas like data science, environmental science, and health sciences often have diverse funding sources.
Mentorship and Support: Finding mentors who are experienced in navigating the funding landscape can provide valuable guidance and support. Joining professional societies and associations can offer resources, networking opportunities, and advocacy for early-career scientists. Advocacy and Policy Engagement: Scientists can work collectively to advocate for more independent and robust funding mechanisms. Engaging with science policy can help shape a more favorable environment for future scientists. Public Engagement and Communication: Increasing public understanding and support for science can create a broader base of support for funding independent research. Effective science communication and outreach can build public trust and influence policy.
While these strategies don't eliminate the influence of politics, they can provide avenues for young scientists to pursue their research with greater independence and integrity. Clear Communication: When communicating with the public and policymakers, scientists should clearly distinguish between their research findings and any policy recommendations. They should explain the evidence and its implications without venturing into political advocacy unless explicitly asked to do so in a policy advisory capacity. Politicians: Politicians should base their statements on sound, peer-reviewed scientific evidence and be transparent about the sources of their information.
They should avoid cherry-picking data to fit their agendas. Education and Training: Scientists should receive training in science communication to effectively convey their findings to the public and policymakers without crossing into advocacy. Policymakers should have access to scientific advisors and education to better understand and utilize scientific evidence in their decision-making processes. Independent Advisory Bodies: Establish and support independent scientific advisory bodies that can provide unbiased, evidence-based recommendations to policymakers. The notion that these bodies should operate transparently and be insulated from political pressures the ordinary citizen has no way of knowing. Public Engagement: Encourage public forums and debates that bring together scientists, policymakers, and citizens to discuss scientific issues and their policy implications. This can foster a more informed and engaged public discourse.
We and attempt, to reinforce ethical standards for both scientists and politicians. Scientists should adhere to principles of integrity, objectivity, and transparency, while politicians should commit to using evidence responsibly and avoiding the manipulation of scientific information. Institutional Safeguards: Strengthen institutional safeguards that protect scientific research from political interference. This can include ensuring that research funding decisions are made by independent committees and that scientific institutions have the autonomy to conduct their work without undue political influence.
Accountability Mechanisms: Implement accountability mechanisms for both scientists and politicians. For scientists, this includes robust peer review and oversight processes. For politicians, this means transparency in how they use scientific evidence and being held accountable for misrepresenting or misusing that evidence. By emphasizing these principles and practices, it is possible to better navigate the dichotomy between science and politics, ensuring that each maintains its integrity while effectively contributing to society.
[1] Watchman On The Wall… A Silent Voice In A Sea Of NoiseMakers!