Scientocracy
With Scientokratie ( Latin scientia 'knowledge', 'science' and ancient Greek κράτος krátos , ',' power ',' domination 'violence) is the political or otherwise socially relevant "rule of science" means or "rule of the scientists."
Scientific basis
Scientism
The thesis of Scientokratie (also Szientokratie ) is one of the variants of the Szientizismus . According to this, human relationships and societies can only be organized according to scientific criteria, i. In other words, ethics can ultimately also be scientifically founded. In addition, scientism refers to the demand for the application of scientific methods for practices in almost all areas of society, especially politics .
As Scientokratie in the strict sense, a form of influence is on the decisions of government or administration understood should build in all actions on scientifically sound knowledge. Scientists and other scientifically and technically competent persons replace the formation of political opinions. The focus is on the rational, effective planning and implementation of goal-oriented projects. While the focus is entirely on ways and means, the importance of parties , democratic decision-making and political decision-making processes with regard to the choice of social goals diminishes .
Differentiation from other expertocracies
The public use of the term Scientocracy in the early 21st century describes a danger, an assumption or an outlook for a possible development. In contrast to the technocracy , which began in the real technocratic movement in the USA in the 1920s and which mostly produced real technocratic governments in political crisis situations, there is no comparable influence of Scientocrats as members of governments until 2020 .
Based on technocrats, it is assumed that Scientocrats would form their theses on the assumption that there is no ideological and economic way to build state stability and thus to ensure the well-being of the people.
Even in antiquity , Plato demanded that the state be run by philosophers in view of the often inadequate suitability of the rulers . Although philosophy is also a science, epistocracy does not fall under the current concept of Scientocracy . The latter is based on scientific "hard" facts and knowledge and rejects the influence of moral , ethical , ideological , partisan, philosophical or other "soft" motives as unreliable.
Scientific and political discussion
- 1996: Erwin Chargaff wrote: “What unites all contemporary natural sciences is a deep disdain for that which is not protected by an impenetrable armor of incomprehensible professionalism. They recognize each other by not understanding each other. "
- 1998: Stephan Albrecht : “For them [the proponents of an almost unlimited freedom of research] the modern contract between science and society is designed in such a way that society provides science with all the necessary resources and at the same time society takes over the risky consequences of science Guaranteed to do. This horrific image of a Scientocracy has about as much in common with democratic ideas as fast food has slow food. The aspect of relations between science and the public is of interest here. The Scientocracy is, so to speak, the prime example of a hermetic public. Since only the Scientocrats know what is good for society, it is determined in their closed circles how society should develop further. The rest of society is in a reactive role. It is quite obvious to me that such ideas are not only not democratic but also have no prospects. However, they are quite widespread and become politically relevant because they seek to connect with economically powerful people. This can also be studied using the example of biotechnology and molecular biology. "
- 2017: Bernhard Eitel , Rector of Heidelberg University wrote: “... in all areas and dimensions of our life we are faced with the challenge of having to differentiate between reality and appearance, between fact, error and lie. In science, it is a fundamental task to get to the bottom of things, to separate the facts and findings from the wrong and wrong from a plethora of seeming options. Science, however, must never claim the truth for itself, because it is precisely the essence of science to repeatedly question the existing. Even in times of 'alternative facts', science cannot replace politics. This led to Scientocracy , to the dismantling of the very essence of science and academic freedom. "
- 2020: Peter Strohschneider formulated: “In a democracy, political disputes are not deviations, but the norm, and for this there is - within the framework of the constitution - no superordinate level of arbitration. Not even science! This is because it can (methodically skeptical!) Say what is the case. But it cannot say what should be the case without an alternative. Science has no political mandate, nor is it lacking. I call scientocratic the claim that instead of the competition of truth claims there is only one, certain, namely: scientific truth. From it it follows immediately what needs to be done, and it can therefore overcome social value conflicts and political disputes. This illusory claim is poorly thought out in terms of epistemological and democratic theory. And at the same time there is a policy of de-politicization in that claim. The scientocratic diminishes the importance of the political by pretending that its conflicts can be decided on a transpolitical, scientific level. In this the scientocratic criticism of populist anti-science is in turn anti-political. It is precisely there where, on the contrary, it is important to become political. "
Media discussion in the 2020s
During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic , the media increasingly got the impression that scientists, especially virologists , could significantly influence political decisions and take over the reins of action. You could gain the authority to interpret the evaluation of the development. After the generally accepted massive contact restrictions in Germany since March 2020, the number of voices that the dangers posed by the pandemic wanted to be weighed against those that would come with the standstill of social life and the economy increased. The way was to be found that would bring the least damage to society as a whole. A distinction was made between three main strategies:
- Individual areas were surprised by the pandemic with no sign of the public recognizable (e.g. Wuhan , Spain or Italy ). The immediate rescue of acutely threatened life was the priority here. Only then could a sustainable strategy begin.
- The pandemic, which has now been recognized, should be contained or at least slowed down as far as possible so as not to overload hospital capacities with too many seriously infected people at the same time (e.g. Germany ).
- The pandemic, which has now been recognized, is “starved” by allowing parts of the population to become infected until they are infected and the hoped-for immunity is achieved and further spread is no longer possible (e.g. Sweden and USA ).
Recognized scientists held different or even opposing views, including e.g. B. Christian Drosten from the Charité Berlin and on the other hand Anders Tegnell , state epidemiologist of the Swedish public health authority (Folkhälsomyndigheten) and others. v. a. m. This diversity of scientifically based approaches to fighting the pandemic reveals that science researches and seeks, but that politics must make decisions for society now and for the foreseeable future.
Example of discussion:
- April 2020: Christian Bartlau commented on a talk show with Sandra Maischberger u. a. with: "... Maischberger ... does not ignore the question of whether the debate about the measures alone endangers the discipline of the people in the country. A clear answer from Augstein : 'Then we would be a Scientocracy , where the virologists take control and people are neither allowed to go out nor worry.' "
Individual evidence
- ↑ Stangl Online Lexicon for Psychology and Education , accessed April 6, 2020
- ↑ Dirk Jörke: Democracy as an experience: John Dewey and the political philosophy of the present. VS Verlag, 2003, p. 84.
- ↑ Erwin Chargaff: Lamentation over the disappearance of the dryads. Quoted in: Stephan Albrecht: Science as a hermetic public. In: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences (Hrsg.): Gegenworte. Booklets for the Disput über das Wissen, Book 1 , 1998, accessed on June 7, 2020
- ^ Stephan Albrecht: Science as a hermetic public. In: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences (Hrsg.): Gegenworte. Booklets for the Disput über das Wissen, Book 1 , 1998, accessed on June 7, 2020
- ^ Bernhard Eitel: Schein & sein. At Uni Heidelberg online, issue 11, December 2017 , accessed May 3, 2020
- ↑ Peter Strohschneider: The rule of science? Scientocracy as anti-politics. In: Akademie Aktuell 1.2019 , accessed April 6, 2020
- ↑ Christian Bartlau: Loosening? Yes No Maybe? "Maischberger" plays with the corona feelings. On Web.de on April 2, 2020 , accessed May 3, 2020