Book Review – The same and not the same (Does science really contribute to the development of democracy?)

I read the book The same and not the same by Roald Hoffman and wrote a book review.

 

Today, our society considers equality as one of the most important values and strives for it. Equality is stated in the Korean Constitution, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights points out that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights from the very first article. In Korea, the fact that there are women, people with disabilities, naturalized immigrants, and cleaning workers among the candidates for proportional representation in political parties, and that this is publicized in the media, paradoxically means that our society has not yet provided them with full equality. At the same time, however, we can assume that this is because our society seeks equality, and the idea of giving equal rights to these groups makes a good impression on voters. When this equality is combined with political participation, it becomes democracy. Democracy is one of the dominant ideologies in the world today, and the 20th century has seen dramatic and ongoing democratization in countries like South Korea, Yugoslavia, Myanmar, and Cuba. As an aspiring scientist, it’s interesting to see how science and technology relate to democracy.
In his book The same and not the same, Professor Roald Hoffman argues that democracy can be viewed as a social invention, which interacts with science and technology. He describes the development of chemistry and its applications, from the purple dye Tyrian purple used in ancient Rome to the synthesized and widely used indigo, and compares democracy in ancient Athens to democracy today. In doing so, Hoffman argues that science, including chemistry, has inevitably helped to democratize society. By science, he means a wide range of disciplines, including the natural sciences and engineering. While science and technology have been used for some unsavory purposes, such as war and torture, they have mostly changed society for the better, providing much more people with necessities and comforts that were once only available to a privileged few.
However, I believe that this argument is flawed when considering the actual democratization process. As a simple example, China is one of the most developed countries in the world in terms of science and technology, but not in terms of democratization. If, as Hoffman claims, “science inevitably contributes to the democratization of society,” then we should expect to see democracy develop while science develops.
In the end, I think Hoffman’s argument is flawed because it is based on a misconception of causality. Science and technology can certainly bring material affluence to the masses, as the Industrial Revolution made mass production possible. But this is only after democratization has already occurred, and in places where democratization is not well established, the contribution of science and technology will be less. Where democracy works well, it focuses society’s capabilities in ways that benefit the electorate, and the fruits of science and technology and industrialization can be channeled to the general public, the voters. But where it doesn’t, the benefits go to a privileged few, or it fails to focus society’s capacities, resulting in smaller gains.
Hoffman also argues for the role of science and scientists in democracy, citing environmental issues as an example. First, he argues that it is not only our right to know science, but also our duty. For example, if a chemist doesn’t know chemistry, who else would be able to give an informed opinion on chemistry-related topics, and it would be undemocratic for citizens to believe what a chemist says because they don’t know chemistry. Furthermore, Hoffman argues against Platonism, arguing that scientists and technologists should not rule the world. According to him, scientists are accustomed to “analysis,” which explains all phenomena in their system of inquiry, but social problems cannot be analyzed, whether they are simple or complex. Scientists also tend to make rationality-oriented arguments, and they cannot let go of the dream that a universe full of emotions and collective action will be governed by rational principles that we have not yet discovered. Hoffman points to communism as an example, noting that while it was a “scientific social system,” it was based on the superstition that humans have the ability to transform society just as they have transformed nature, and that society can develop infinitely. Ideally, Hoffman argues, scientists should be involved in politics, but not empowered, so that they can give sound advice and prevent irrationality from spreading in society; if they are empowered, only the rational will push themselves too far. But at the same time, Hoffman admits that he exaggerates elsewhere in the book, and that in reality, scientists are no better or worse than traditional politicians at engaging in politics.
I strongly agree that citizens need to know science. If they don’t know science, they may be misled by the claims made by some capitalists and their hired scientists and not be able to make the right judgment. Nowadays, the internet and other networks make it easier to access information about science and technology, but there is also a lot of misinformation, so personal scientific knowledge is still important. Obviously, education should be a right and duty in a democratic society because if individuals do not know science and other knowledge, inequality will occur due to knowledge gaps. However, I don’t think it is right to say that scientists should not have power in politics. Hoffman may be right if, as he claims, scientists are unaware of the difference between natural science and society and are complacent that their opinions are rational. However, this is only true for some scientists, and the same could be said for non-scientists if they substitute their specialty for science. Even if the tendency were more prevalent among scientists, generalizations like Hoffman’s would have a negative impact, such as society shunning scientists. On the contrary, scientists are currently underrepresented in political participation, which means they are less likely to bring their values to society. In addition, the current society shows a lack of rationality in budget allocation and execution. The growing fiscal deficit is proof of this. In addition, Hoffman argues that in a political system, scientists should play the role of advisors without power, but in actual politics, having no power not only makes the advisor less accountable, but also makes it difficult for the recipient of the advice to respect the advisor. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow scientists to have the same power as non-scientists.
So there you have it, a summary of Roald Hoffman’s arguments about how science and scientists affect democracy, and a rebuttal to them. While he argues that science is an essential contributor to democratization and that the average citizen needs to be scientifically literate in order to sustain democracy, he also argues that scientists should not be allowed to participate in politics and have power. However, in this article, I argue that science and technology do not have a direct impact on democratization and that scientists should be encouraged to participate in politics. In the age of science, the relationship between science and politics is something that deserves to be thought about. I hope that readers of this article will take the time to think about it.