Book Review – The Same and Not the Same (Does Science Really Contribute to the Development of Democracy?)

Read Roald Hoffmann’s book The Same and Not the Same to find out if science really contributes to the development of democracy.

 

Today, our society considers equality to be one of the most important values and strives for it. Equality is enshrined in South Korea’s Constitution, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 1 that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights. In South Korea, the fact that women, people with disabilities, foreign naturalized citizens, and cleaning workers are 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 full equality to these groups. 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 places like South Korea, Yugoslavia, Myanmar, and Cuba. It is interesting to see how science and technology relate to these democracies.
In his book The Same and Not the Same, Professor Roald Hoffmann argues that democracy can be seen as a kind of social invention, which interacts with 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 of today, and compares democracy in ancient Athens to democracy today. In doing so, Hoffmann argues that science, including chemistry, has inevitably helped democratize society. By science, Hoffmann means a broad range of disciplines, including 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 incorrect 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 Hoffmann claims, “science inevitably contributes to the democratization of society,” then we should see democracy develop while science develops.
In the end, Hoffmann’s argument is a misconception of causality and leads to the wrong conclusion. 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 taken place, 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 capacities in ways that benefit the electorate, and the fruits of science and technology and industrialization can be channeled to the electorate, the general public. But where it doesn’t, the benefits go to a privileged few, or it fails to focus society’s capacities, resulting in smaller gains.
Hoffmann also argues for the role of science and scientists in democracy, citing environmental issues as an example. He argues that knowing science is not only our right, 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, Hoffmann argues against Platonism, arguing that scientists and technologists should not rule the world. In his book, Hoffmann seems to be looking at Platonism at a very elementary level, meaning that Platonism, as advocated by Plato, Aristotle, and others who were skeptical of Socrates’ death by democracy, would be represented by a system of government where philosophers are kings and run by experts. According to his argument, scientists are accustomed to “analysis,” which explains all phenomena in their system of inquiry, but social problems cannot be analyzed in either simple or complex ways. Scientists also tend to make claims that are oriented toward rationality, and they cannot let go of the dream that the universe, full of emotion and collective action, will be governed by rational principles that we have not yet discovered. Hoffmann 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, Hoffmann 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, Hoffmann admits that he exaggerates elsewhere in the article, and that in reality, scientists are no better or worse at engaging in politics than traditional politicians.
I strongly agree that citizens should know science. If the average citizen doesn’t know science, they may be misled by the claims of some capitalists and their hired scientists and not be able to make good decisions. 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 knowledge of science is still important. Obviously, education should be a right and a 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’s right to say that scientists shouldn’t have power in politics. Hoffmann may be right if scientists do not recognize the difference between the natural sciences and society, and if they are complacent about the rationality of their opinions. However, this is only true for some scientists, and the same could be said for non-scientists if they substitute their field of expertise for science. Even if the tendency is more prevalent among scientists, a generalized claim like Hoffmann’s would have a negative effect on society, such as shunning scientists. On the contrary, scientists are currently underrepresented in political participation, which means that 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, Hoffmann argues that in a political system, scientists should play the role of advisors without power, but in practice, being powerless in politics not only makes the advisor less responsible, 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, Hoffmann’s arguments about how science and scientists affect democracy, and my rebuttal to them. Hoffmann argues that science is an essential contributor to democratization, and that the general citizenry needs to be scientifically literate to sustain democracy, but he also argues that scientists’ political participation is not good. 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.