Jag vet inte riktigt vad jag ska göra av de här artiklarna jag har läst på sistone om vetenskap/forskning och universitetens historiska, nuvarande och framtida roll, men kanske finns det en röd tråd. Det blir en radda citat bara tills vidare:
This influential conception of the relations between science and society helped underwrite what has become known as the “knowledge deficit model” of science communication. The model posits an asymmetric relation between scientists and the public: non-scientists are seen as passive recipients of scientific knowledge, which they should accept more or less uncritically according to the dispensations of scientific experts. […]
In the end, the knowledge deficit model fails because it views public trust and acceptance of science primarily as an epistemic problem—a matter of too little knowledge. What we need instead are approaches that respect equally important moral and political factors in shaping the relationship between science and society. Social trust in science must be earned and cultivated, and this process depends as much on power as on knowledge. Even in an ideal case, no amount of consensus about scientific facts or the mechanisms of knowledge production will eliminate disagreement about the policies we should pursue as a democratic society—a political and moral question that inevitably impinges on values.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes & Silvia Ivani, “The Inflated Promise of Science Education“, Boston Review (6 september 2022)
Om historiska och eventuellt framtida omvandlingar:
The next phase of the evolution of science will necessarily involve the reconciliation of its exploratory and authoritative elements. This will require changes both at the level of scientific practice and public understanding. […]
At the level of scientific practice, we should expect vast changes in institutions. Some scientific fields and subfields should continue to claim authority. Others, however, should disclaim it partly or completely. […] In some cases, the best solution might be to break a field into multiple separate and rarely interacting components, thereby preventing premature consensus. In other cases, it may be necessary to introduce many different gradations of acceptance and authority.
Geoff Anders, “The Transformations of Science“, Palladium (10 oktober 2022)
Om man inte orkar läsa Michela Massimis uppenbart upplysande bok Perspectival Realism (öppen tillgång) så duger Philip Kitchers recension gott och väl:
Appreciating the cogency of what past decades have taught, she affirms that all knowledge is situated; scientists cannot find any Archimedean point or achieve the “view from nowhere.” Their research is undertaken from perspectives. But she sees the plurality of perspectives as crucial to the production of reliable knowledge. Her task is to understand how this works, how some kinds of cognitive achievement—knowledge, understanding, an ability to steer intervention—are possible across perspectives. […]
Does Perspectival Realism provide the antidote to Antivax? Like science itself, it is no magic bullet, but it certainly provides immediate relief for the simplest arguments—those that see scientific success as an all-or-nothing affair. Science isn’t infallible, Massimi shows, but it isn’t incorrigible, either. The best it can offer are hard-won, if incomplete and tentative, successes. Science grows through the interaction of diverse perspectives.
Philip Kitcher, “Windows on Reality“, Boston Review (12 september 2022)
Om boken Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else) av Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, även om citaten handlar om annat:
The undercommons is located in the university—more generally, in the swarm of relations and systems we could call “academia” or “intellectual life”—but is not a physical place; rather, it is a “downlow lowdown maroon community of the university … where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong.” […]
Nicholas Whittaker, “Elite Capture“, The Point Magazine (18 oktober 2022)
Moten and Harney [i boken The Undercommons från 2013] insist that this is radical work: work that aims at, and helps achieve, the abolition of the structures of evil that organize the university, and the modern world more generally. The undercommons aspires both to their abolition and the construction of new and more loving forms of life.
Och så en platshållare för att jag borde läsa Michael Nielsen och Kanjun Qius “A Vision of Metascience”, som kanske kan knytas till den röda tråden, men kanske blir den här delen mer ljusrosa:
In this essay we sketch a vision of how the social processes of science may be rapidly improved. In this vision, metascience plays a key role: it deepens our understanding of which social processes best support discovery; that understanding can then help drive change.
Michael Nielsen och Kanjun Qiu, “A Vision of Metascience: An Engine of Improvement for the Social Processes of Science“, The Science++ Project (18 oktober 2022)