"If we are not practicing good science, we probably aren’t practicing good democracy. And vice versa"

(Dennis Overbye, New York Times January 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27essa.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink).

Discuss.

Ok.
If not A, then probably not B. (An inverse of some assumed statement)
If not B, then probably not A. (A contrapositive of some assumed statement)


Overbye gives the example of China's persecution of a free-thinking scientist as evidence of "if not good science then probably not good democracy." Yes, whenever the state (or the Church) intrudes to place limits of free scientific inquiry, we probably don't have a good democracy. And whenever democracy is poor and the state erodes all those civil liberties we hold dear, it's likely that free investigation in science is limited, as well.

But maybe it also is worthwhile to look at the assumed statement and its converse (leaving out the probabilistic element):

If A then B: If good science then good democracy.
If B then A: If good democracy then good science.

Do these hold true?

Good science is about a good process of scientific inquiry, and not necessarily about getting the right answer. Overbye also seems to be claiming that the habits of mind (to borrow a phrase from my son's teachers) of scientific inquiry -- skepticism, empiricism, etc. -- lead to the same kind of self-critical analytical stance that is necessary for good democratic governance.

In my view, this may be necessary, but it's not sufficient. The key element needed for good democratic governance not included here is empathy. For a democracy to function well, citizens must empathize with others. The strong must be able to put themselves in the metaphorical shoes of the weak, and vice versa. Without empathy, self-interested individuals will end up creating what de Tocqueville referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." And science without empathy can lead to Dr. Mengele.

And then the converse: Do we see good science in good democracies? Sweden and Denmark are good democracies, and they probably have some good science, but they are not known for their leading edge science. This may be a contributory, but not necessary or sufficient condition. Having a strong democracy might help science, but it's not enough.

But I like good democracy, and I like good science. Whether or not one leads to the other, I want both.