random thought: discussions around the relationship between science and politics, science and values, or science and activism have never completely resolved into a satisfactory answer for me and I just wondered whether the real issue is that science and political action are associated with *different modes of engagement*.
Scientific integrity, to me, includes engaging in good faith with all of the evidence, that means also a demand to engage with arguments by 'the other side'. Politics or activism does not require me to do that in any shape or form (though some such engagement might sometimes be instrumentally useful). That's the actual tension...
all of the discourse between 'objective' and 'subjective' or 'apolitical science versus everything is political' is stuck on not quite the right thing
make sense? all comments welcome...
@UlrikeHahn For myself, I find it at least somewhat helpful to think of science as informing us about the consequences (including uncertainty estimates, ranges, etc.) of political decisions but politics has to make the decision itself. In that sense, science is "apolitical" or "neutral". But a lot of political actors try to occlude/mislead about the consequences of their political program. And in such cases, I think, science has to take a clear stance in opposition.
@bpaassen yes, I agree that's one way in which the roles are often different, but I think there's more to the contrast than that-
I am, after all, free a a citizen to engage in political advocacy (that's part of free speech), so there is an issue about the line between me saying things as Ulrike-the-scientist and Ulrike-the-citizen.
and, I guess what I'm arguing is that looking just at statements themselves isn't enough to distinguish these two roles
@UlrikeHahn I agree with that. One sometimes also can hear/read/see how scientists try to make the role they are currently taking more explicit - but it is still imperfect, I feel, and lines can be blurry.
@bpaassen I think they can blur, among other things, because I think there can be contexts where Ulrike-the-scientist can rightfully say "this is the best course of action" (as a declarative statement)
so the action vs. fact distinction is only sort of correlated with the roles....
@UlrikeHahn
I think part of the confusion you express comes from not specifying the context in which the political speech is happening; political speech on an apple box in the street is different in kind from the political speech at the parliamentary hearing.
For example the initial claims that the activists doesn't have to engage with the arguments of the other side is true for the street case, but is not necessarily true in parliament (depends largely on how good the opposing arguments are).
The reason for this distinction is partially the social context, but also that the content of debate is different, on the street you do not bother with the details and it's only the big principles that matter. In parliament you are in the unfortunate position of having to do all the detailed work, and have to resolve the contradictions between opposing principles that arise in the particulars.
@bpaassen
@tobychev @bpaassen this deserves a longer answer than I have time right now, but I think I'm not really in first instance thinking about the contrast between the scientist and the politician (ie the parlamentarian, or member of government) but between Me-the-scientist and Me-the-citizen.
As a citizen, I can freely advocate for actions/positions and there is no obligation (legal or otherwise) that in doing so I *have to* engage with other positions
at least, not in any straightforward way that I can see
@UlrikeHahn @tobychev @bpaassen
One of my colleagues (Steve Kelley) had a very helpful perspective on this. He said that one should always engage with politicians (and other activists) knowing which of three hats you were wearing:
Hat 1. This is my expertise. I am the world expert in this topic. It comes from my research and I am *the* person to talk to about this topic.
Hat 2. This is my field. I know the nuances and questions that one needs to ask. I'm qualified to tell you which science is well-founded and which is bogus.
Hat 3. I'm a citizen. I'm a reasonably smart person who wants to share my opinions on what one should do in this situation.
I've found that talking to politicians being explicit about which hat I'm wearing has been very helpful. (And all three hats can be important. Remember, politicians want to know what their constituents want ... well, good politicians do. This why "call your representative" matters.)
Steve knows from what he is talking about. He was a state senator here in MN and then transitioned to be faculty in our School of Public Affairs. He ran a class once for other faculty in engagement, which is where I got this from.
@adredish @tobychev @bpaassen that is a helpful distinction and related to what I'm interested in here, but more in an implicit way, and I'm interested in capturing that implicit bit more clearly.
To put it differently, I could potentially be an expert on a topic but, say, publicly act as a lobbyist, so 'expertise' is relevant here by virtue of (genuine) expertise requiring a mode of engagement that engages with all of the evidence.
So expertise requires the particular mode of engagement that I think characterises science, but the fact that I'm an expert doesn't necessarily make all my communications in that mode.
And if what I'm trying to understand are lines like that between 'objective/subjective' or 'political/apolitical' I think that mode matters.
make sense?
@UlrikeHahn
I think you misunderstood my intent, I didn't speak of the contrast between the parliamentarian and the scientist.
Rather I wish to highlight that the same person can use different modes of communication depending on the context, because what is appropriate depends on the context. For example, Greta roared "How dare you" at the UN climate action summit, delivering a speech centered around emotions. But in her climate book the mode is instead presenting a wide range of expertise with the concluding hope "you can start connecting the dots yourself". However in both cases what she is doing is fundamentally political activism.
@adredish @bpaassen
@tobychev @adredish @bpaassen
I see- I agree that the context matters and you might also definitely be able to `do activism' by presenting the evidence
but the core difference remains, to my mind, that not engaging with all of the evidence is 'bad science' while advocacy does not require that (rather, whether I do or do not, in communication or otherwise, is an instrumental decision: does it help or hinder..)