Mr Prime Minister!
Madam Minister of Education and Science!
Dear scientists!
Ladies and Gentlemen!
I
The V World Congress of Latvian Scientists is dedicated to the theme "Science for Latvia". What can Latvian scientists contribute to the Latvian state? This is a political issue, so let me formulate some theses on the relationship between science and politics.
Today I still belong to both these worlds, so I feel particularly honoured to speak at this congress on this topic.
The two basic concepts in the title of the Congress - scientists and the state - are concepts of the Enlightenment.
400 years ago, the liberation from a worldview based on Christian faith (hence the secularisation of thought) led to the rational worldview, which in turn is the philosophical basis of modern science. This is common knowledge.
Perhaps less attention has been paid in the public consciousness to the fact that the modern state, as a secular territorial state with a unified state power, is also a product of the Enlightenment. So, the modern state and science have originated at the same time.
II
What about politics? Is it, or at least should it be, rational?
It should be noted that the concept of rationality in science and in politics are not the same. Science and politics operate with different objectives, overlapping but not identical.
The aim of science is to discover objective truth, which sounds noble and beautiful. If we are self-critical and modest and believe that this is not possible for an imperfect being like human, then the aim of science is at least to get closer to the truth.
The aim of politics in the modern state, on the other hand, is to achieve, through political power, a normative (and therefore considered good and right) state of society.
This normative state can be very low-key, such as a dictator's desire to maintain his power, or, of course, in a democratic state this setting means solving various problems in the common interest of society. That is to say, solving them according to normative criteria of value.
But in any case, the aim of politics is normative, while the aim of science is objective.
III
Does science need politics?
In principle, no. Methodologically, the aims of science are objective and do not depend directly on politics.
However, the subjective value system of scientists has an indirect influence on science, for example in the choice of the object of research (in determining what is known as research interest).
Directly, policy influences science practically rather than methodologically, as political decisions, in particular funding, can affect the ability of scientists to do science, as well as the transfer of scientific results to the economy or society at large.
IV
Does politics need science?
Here the situation is more complex. Politics, in principle, wants to shape society. This in turn requires knowledge about society. Both knowledge of the current situation, predictive knowledge of the desired situation, and knowledge of how to get from the current situation to the desired situation.
Practical politics (unlike faith, utopia or dogmatic ideology) always – and at least from the corner of its eye - looks at reality.
The study of reality, on the other hand, is a scientific field. Politics can only succeed (at least in the long run) if it is somewhat reality-oriented.
Science produces knowledge that can be useful to politics. Moreover, this is not all the knowledge that politics uses. The personal or collective experience of policy actors, for example, is also important.
However, scientific knowledge that claims to be objective is knowledge that politics can rely on more confidently.
V
The question here is how far politics should be based on knowledge obtained according to scientific methods.
In other words, to what extent should politics be scientific?
This question has become very topical on the world agenda in recent years, particularly in the context of the Covid-19 crisis or, for a long time now, in the context of the climate crisis.
As I have already said, in the long term, political objectives can only be achieved more effectively if politics takes account of science.
Here, I mean not only the natural sciences, which are important, for example, in the Covid-19 and climate crisis issues, but also of the social sciences and the humanities.
I can mention, for example, theories of social change and reform, which can help politics to implement the reforms that it has decided to make. Because the implementation of reforms is itself also a science.
VI
As Immanuel Kant said, "From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned" ("Aus so krummen Holze, als woraus der Mensch gemacht ist, kann nichts ganz Gerades gezimmert werden.")
This means that man is not only a rational being guided by reason, but also a being guided by emotions that defy the logic of reason.
Politics, as one of human creative expressions, is a typical field where the dual nature of man - both rational mind and irrational emotions - and the complex relationship between the two are expressed.
VII
However, a politics guided solely by scientific rationality cannot succeed in the long term. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, because the subjective side of people - emotions, values, desires - cannot be excluded by politics simply because it is incompatible with scientific rationality.
Secondly, and this is a fundamental epistemological problem, experience shows that scientific knowledge is never definitive. They are practically always incomplete or even wrong in the short or long term.
We can say the same about today's current situation. In 10 years or 50 years, what we know today will be either incomplete or wrong. Politics must take this into account, of course.
Practical experience also shows that science is very often not monolithic - there is a prevailing view and various alternative views. There is an interesting work in the sociology of science on scientific revolutions - how scientific revolutions are formed scientifically, i. e. how one view on a particular problem is transformed into another view. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity was for a time in a revolutionary situation, overturning the previous static view of physics.
Therefore, politics that wants to pursue its scientifically validated goals only through scientific methods will inevitably run into a wall. Sometimes with catastrophic consequences, as in the case of Marxism, which, at least in the Marxists' own self-understanding, was considered a scientific worldview.
VIII
On the other hand - and this is very frightening - politics that ignores science and is therefore relies primarily on the subjective sentiments and preferences of the public can indeed succeed politically. We see this with populist forces of different hues all over the world and, of course, also in Latvia.
However, such a politics is surely incapable of tackling the real problems, including those which it itself recognises as problems.
At the extreme, society can begin to live in a parallel fantasy world where it might even feel good for a while.
But reality cannot be influenced by fantasies; sooner or later it will make itself felt. That is why such policies will eventually run into a wall.
IX
How can we best organise the relationship between politics and science, which is essentially a relationship between two different, parallel rationalities?
I think that this relationship should be distantly cooperative.
What does such a distanced cooperative model of the relationship between politics and science mean?
Firstly, each sphere - politics and science - operates exclusively according to its own inherent rationality.
Science is constantly trying to get closer to the truth. It produces and accumulates knowledge about the truth. Moreover, truth, whether at the individual, societal or humanity level, is always an end in itself. This is the setting of the Enlightenment, unlike in previous eras. This end in itself is independent of politics. The discovery of truth belongs to human anthropological nature, at least, that is one of the theories of anthropology.
Politics, on the other hand, attempts to govern and shape society according to its normative notions of what is good and right.
These two aims and the rationalities that bear them should not be confused. There must be a distance between them.
Secondly, a good policy, aimed at long-term success takes into account both the public mood and desires and the knowledge of reality, of truth, that has been acquired through scientific methods. It tries to reconcile them. There must be cooperation and collaboration between these two spheres.
This means that good politics promotes the production of such knowledge.
But politics, aware of its responsibility to society, determine the extent to which and what knowledge produced by science it does/does not take into account and incorporate into its policy objectives.
X
The extent to which the knowledge produced by science should be taken into account in politics is a subject of much debate globally and in Latvia. I will give three examples.
- Was the knowledge produced by mainstream science about Covid-19 the right knowledge to consider? Most of the public and politicians in all countries took it into account, but there was also a global anti-vaxxer movement that did not think so. It had alternative knowledge. The question here is, which is the right knowledge? That is for politics to decide. Fortunately, I think that politics in Latvia and around the world got it right. But the question is political, abstract.
- The question is, to what extent should the knowledge produced by science, for example on the climate crisis, be taken into account? Should the use of fossil energy sources be stopped and when? Should we reduce the number of cattle here in Latvia? Because that, of course, has an impact on the world's climate. If so, by how much and when? This is a political question.
- What are the implications for society and democracy of artificial intelligence created by science, especially after the latest qualitative leap? We are in an interesting situation here, because at the moment scientific knowledge about it is fragmented and uncertain. But politics has to answer this question today, how to deal with a situation where scientific knowledge is fragmented. Once science has produced something, we just stand around wondering what to do with it. So, the situation is that politics has to answer today how to decide on this phenomenon that science has created without serious scientific knowledge, without mainstream scientific knowledge. Is there any decision to be taken at all? Or to rely on human intuition to make a decision. If a decision is made, what decision?
XI
Colleagues!
This is a Congress of scientists whose title "Science for Latvia" encodes scientific rationality embedded in political rationality. So, in this title there is the question - what a scientist who wants to get closer to the truth (because that is his only task as a scientist) can do with his work for Latvia. It is a political question.
The tension between these two rationalities and the possible solutions to reconcile them in what I consider to be the optimal model, i.e., a distanced cooperative model, makes this congress interesting, fascinating and useful for scientists and for Latvia.
Thank you!
