Only from the 12th century onwards did knowledge begin to become self-referential. And this is exactly what the populists are now trying to turn around, Lars Jaeger writes in his essay on finews.first.

This article is published on finews.first, a forum for authors specialized in economic and financial topics.

It is sometimes quite banal experiences, conversations or incidents that open our eyes to the drama of social developments. A professionally esteemed colleague at work who doubts the theory of evolution, internet bloggers who loudly proclaim that Einsteins theory of relativity cannot be correct, the mother-in-law, who vehemently fights against the vaccination of her grandchildren or the friend who unexpectedly presents himself as a climate skeptic.

A cautious objection that in all these respects science makes unambiguous statements and that the experts agree to 99 percent is then wiped away with the reference Oh, the scientists, they dont know any better. They do not agree 100 percent or even They are paid to make these statements.

It is precisely the increasing dependence of science on commercial interests that should concern us

It seems contradictory: people trust science in principle but also associate it with strong conflicts of interest. Scientists are paid, they say, often with the appendix by the government. But what is supposed to sound scandalous on closer inspection turns out to be a banality: Should researchers perhaps work for free? The fact that most research institutions, and thus financial sponsors, are government institutions has proven to be very helpful for society.

For it is precisely the increasing dependence of science on commercial interests that should concern us. For all the positive developmental dynamics of the interaction of entrepreneurial spirit and scientific creativity that have triggered the enormous increase in economic prosperity over the last 200 years, it seems rather uncanny to most people to let the profit motives of technology investors, the ideology of the Silicon Valley transhumanists or, more generally, the capitalist (or military) logic of exploitation decide on our all future.

There is a second development within the sciences that accommodates its populist opponents

And the example of China shows us what we will encounter when an all-powerful state outside democratic structures controls scientific and technological progress.

In addition, there is a second development within the sciences that accommodates its populist opponents. Beginning with modern physics at the beginning of the 20th century, it increasingly abandoned any belief in the possibility of absolute certainty. Thus, Newtons idea of absolute space or absolute time had to be replaced by the relational space-time of Einsteins theory of relativity, which for non-physicists is barely comprehensible.

Even more drastic was the realization that a quantum object is both wave and particle at the same time and that the laws that apply in the microcosm are completely different from those of our macrocosm. The scientists had to learn to live with complementary truths, i.e. not A or B is true, but A and B can both be true at the same time.

The price for our knowledge gain is high we now have nothing left to hold on to

The final deathblow for the philosophical claim for ultimate and substantiating truths was the new concept of objects in quantum physics: Following that time is no longer absolute, physicists claim further that in the microcosm there should no longer be any real and independently existing objects, no objective reality and thus no absolute certainty. It is a paradox: The more knowledge we gained, the less we could hope that there is an ultimate truth.

Thus, the price for our knowledge gain is high we now have nothing left to hold on to. In a process lasting over three centuries, mankind has gradually robbed itself of all its laboriously built up certainties.

We have lost the absolute and eternal truth. This is a good thing because that is not the way the world works. All the more important are the scientific truths, they help us to find our way in our world. These truths are not dogmas, because they are constantly put to the test, for example through experiments and rational discourse with colleagues; they can be rejected and reformulated at any time, depending on the facts. As already Galilei recognized, this is the great strength of science.

These points play into the hands of today's populists, simplifiers and opponents of science

All these losses of truths have consequences for the human psyche. Unique truths, clear spiritual foundations, and unshakable principles are obviously important for us to find our way in the world. The vacuum left by the loss of old certainties creates deep insecurity within us. Thus, in view of the complexity of social, political, economic and scientific issues, for many people, an escape route leads to the past, where everything was supposedly easier and better.

Slogans like The theory of relativity is illogical. Newton was right are more attractive than struggling through the mathematical complexity of modern physics, just as Make America Great Again or There is no man-made climate change sounds better to many ears than the discussion about complex international trade relations or non-linear global meteorological effects caused by the warming of our atmosphere.

These two points, the quite real danger of an exclusively capitalist logic of exploitation of new scientific knowledge and the flight into simple truths, play into the hands of todays populists, simplifiers and opponents of science. Their success lies in the distorting simplification of intellectually demanding social and scientific contexts and the conspiratorial reference to the belief that scientists only follow their own interests.

The populists, on the other hand, are not concerned with increasing knowledge, but with affirming faith

But who says that populists, relativity critics, opponents of evolution and climate change deniers are not allowed to know what they want with the same claim as scientists? What is the difference between scientific truth and populist truth? The difference lies in the motivation of those involved. Scientists want to increase their knowledge in a world full of uncertainties unconstrained, sincere, rational and methodical. To achieve this, they have powerful virtues of science at their disposal:

The populists, on the other hand, are not concerned with increasing knowledge, but with affirming faith. They presuppose clear, unquestionable truths; what does not correspond to their truth is fought with the means of power, not with those of argument or fact. This is literally a step back into the early Middle Ages when there was no self-referential attitude towards ones own knowledge. At that time, knowledge served a foreign purpose, mostly that of confirming particular beliefs.

Only from the 12th century onwards did knowledge begin to become self-referential. And this is exactly what the populists are now trying to turn around. Once again, we must counter this fatal trend!

Lars Jaeger is a Swiss-German author and investment manager. He writes on the history and philosophy of science and technology and has in the past been an author on hedge funds, quantitative investing, and risk management. He is the founder and CEO of Alternative Beta Partners and currently serves asset manager GAM as Head of Alternative Risk Premia. There is an extended version of this article.

Previous contributions: Rudi Bogni, Peter Kurer, Oliver Berger, Rolf Banz, Dieter Ruloff, Werner Vogt, Walter Wittmann, Alfred Mettler, Peter Hody, Robert Holzach, Craig Murray, David Zollinger, Arthur Bolliger, Beat Kappeler, Chris Rowe, Stefan Gerlach, Marc Lussy, Nuno Fernandes, Richard Egger, Maurice Pedergnana, Marco Bargel, Steve Hanke, Urs Schoettli, Ursula Finsterwald, Stefan Kreuzkamp, Oliver Bussmann, Michael Benz, Peter Hody, Albert Steck, Martin Dahinden, Thomas Fedier, Alfred Mettler,Brigitte Strebel, Peter Hody, Mirjam Staub-Bisang, Nicolas Roth, Thorsten Polleit, Kim Iskyan, Stephen Dover, Denise Kenyon-Rouvinez, Christian Dreyer, Kinan Khadam-Al-Jame, Robert Hemmi,Anton Affentranger,Yves Mirabaud, Katharina Bart, Frdric Papp, Hans-Martin Kraus, Gerard Guerdat, MarioBassi, Stephen Thariyan, Dan Steinbock, Rino Borini,Bert Flossbach, Michael Hasenstab, Guido Schilling, Werner E. Rutsch,Dorte Bech Vizard, Adriano B. Lucatelli, Katharina Bart, Maya Bhandari, Jean Tirole, Hans Jakob Roth,Marco Martinelli, Thomas Sutter,Tom King,Werner Peyer, Thomas Kupfer, Peter Kurer,Arturo Bris,Frederic Papp,James Syme, DennisLarsen, Bernd Kramer, Ralph Ebert, Armin Jans,Nicolas Roth, Hans Ulrich Jost, Patrick Hunger, Fabrizio Quirighetti,Claire Shaw, Peter Fanconi,Alex Wolf, Dan Steinbock, Patrick Scheurle, Sandro Occhilupo, Will Ballard, Michael Bornhaeusser, Nicholas Yeo, Claude-Alain Margelisch, Jean-Franois Hirschel, Jens Pongratz, Samuel Gerber, Philipp Weckherlin, Anne Richards, Antoni Trenchev, Benoit Barbereau, Pascal R. Bersier, Shaul Lifshitz, Klaus Breiner, Ana Botn, Martin Gilbert, Jesper Koll, Ingo Rauser, Carlo Capaul, Claude Baumann, Markus Winkler, Konrad Hummler, Thomas Steinemann, Christina Boeck, Guillaume Compeyron, Miro Zivkovic, Alexander F. Wagner, Eric Heymann, Christoph Sax, Felix Brem, Jochen Moebert, Jacques-Aurlien Marcireau, Peter Hody, Ursula Finsterwald, Claudia Kraaz, Michel Longhini, Stefan Blum, Zsolt Kohalmi, Karin M. Klossek, Nicolas Ramelet, Sren Bjnness, Lamara von Albertini, Andreas Britt, Gilles Prince, Fabrizio Pagani, Darren Willams, Salman Ahmed, Stephane Monier, and Peter van der Welle, Swetha Ramachandran, Beat Wittmann, Ken Orchard, Michael Welti, Christian Gast, Didier Saint-Georges, Jeffrey Bohn, Juergen Braunstein, Jeff Voegeli, Grard Piasko, Fiona Frick, Jean Keller, Stefan Schneider, Lars Jaeger, Matthias Hunn, Andreas Vetsch, Teodoro Cocca, Fabiana Fedeli, Claude Baumann, Marionna Wegenstein, Kim Fournais, Carole Millet and Ralph Ebert.

See the original post:

Lars Jaeger: Science in the Fight Against Populist Programs - finews.asia