“Communicative rationality” between the sciences and politics
We were once told in class that there’s a need to bridge communication while accounting for “social responsibility” when nuclear disasters strike. I would agree on that and think this mantra should be extended to almost any practice between the political parties and the scientists were believed to be “neutral”.
As much as the community continues to believe that scientists follow a straight path, in reality, it does not work that way. I’ve seen and I am one of the many, who gallantly follow ideologies as any human would. We all respect one another while some are tolerable, as a start. And as much as how easy it should be to bridge the knowledgeable gap between science and policy making, it’s not — as far as history foretold it.
Furthermore, a scientist who deals with experiments would know that he or she needs to keep an open yet critical mind during the entire process. To let everything matter and sink in is not possible, especially when one of those details could be based from an error unseen by many. However, one cannot shield himself or herself from biases as hypothetically one should.
As with politicians, I cannot say much. In the end, it all boils down to communication, listening to everyone’s point of view, and being critical while being able to deliver a fair discussion of one’s defense line, according to one’s ideology. It’s not easy, but it’s worth trying. What’s worse is that until now, there’s the lack of communication as Habermas would want to express.
But then sometimes, it’s sometimes worth hearing out from a “rationale mind” in the field of politics, such as one coming from a scientific degree. But also, one should never forget that every action one executes would have implied of serving others’ needs, as “social responsibility” should be thought of in every way possible way. We’re rationale and social beings after all.