The Republic of Science
"...Scientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing them in the light of their own personal judgment are in fact cooperating as members of a closely knit organization".
To me, this essay represents what MPC is striving to achieve. Polanyi, the author and our inspiration (Michael Polanyi College), states how the culture of a republic of scientists is a lesson for political and economic theory. I dare to say that the culture he describes is a big lesson for every single branch of knowledge and institution. He dives deeply into how freedom fosters the mutual adjustment of independent initiatives that take into account all the initiatives operating within the same system. It’s all about spontaneous coordination. Every single individual of the group works in its own problem or puzzle, however they all respond to the latest achievements of the others. An invisible hand coordinates them and the end result is unknown, unpredictable. A member of the group will always discover something new, something that adds value or information to the puzzle. They build upon one another; this makes the process faster than an isolated person working on it. Freedom is essential for this to work, i.e. an authority would eliminate their independent initiatives and reduce the effectiveness. The progress would come to a standstill. It happens the same with the market; a single person cannot guide everything because that person doesn’t have all the pieces of the puzzle.
A very important aspect for this to work is to publish every discovery, result or solution because that enables the other scientists to build upon knowledge. Information has to be available for everyone. The most impressive fact to me is that the scientists are motivated by personal standards, because they all want to achieve something individually and collectively. The community also has common standards that are accepted by every single member. In this essay, Polanyi describes three standards:
1. Plausibility: degree that something can be true or attainable.
2. Scientific value composed of accuracy, systematic importance and the intrinsic interest of subject matter.
3. Originality: degree of surprise aroused in other scientists.
The first two standards enforce conformity while the third one dissent.
“The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it”.
Networks among fields are vital; scientists don’t close their mind to other branches or fields because they understand that they can learn and connect knowledge.
Authority is between scientists, not above them. It’s more like a network, in which all of them have the same share of responsibility. They employ their standards both individually and collectively. It’s a collective organization that depends entirely on the initiatives of individuals.
“You can kill or mutilate the advance of science, you cannot shape it. For it can advance only by essentially unpredictable steps, pursuing problems of its own, and the practical benefits of these advances will be incidental and hence doubly predictable”
“…Initiative of original minds, choosing their own problems and carrying out their investigation, according to their own lights”.
“Discovery comes only to a mind immersed in its pursuit. For such work the scientists needs a secluded place among like-minded colleagues who keenly share his aims and sharply control his performances. The soil of academic science must be exterritorial in order to secure its control by scientific opinion”.
By accepting the authority of science, we accept the totality of all these value judgments. Scientific tradition cultivates and fosters originality because it cultivates subversion. It’s not static; it’s a dynamic society that endeavors re-creation, re-thinking and re-doing to keep pushing the society forward.
The Republic of Scientists is a Society of Explorers.
“The explorers strive towards a hidden reality, for the sake of intellectual satisfaction. And as they satisfy themselves, they enlighten all men and are thus helping society to fulfill its obligation towards intellectual self-improvement. Men don’t do as they please but they have the right to speak the truth as they know it”.
This essay definitely inspires me to cultivate both my individual standards and my community standards. By reading this essay, I understood why MPC is named after Polanyi. Reading it was fascinating, breathtaking and inspiring. I know that this kind of culture should be impregnated in every single institution and I’m certain that it would push humanity to a whole other kind of ethics and culture.
A very important aspect for this to work is to publish every discovery, result or solution because that enables the other scientists to build upon knowledge. Information has to be available for everyone. The most impressive fact to me is that the scientists are motivated by personal standards, because they all want to achieve something individually and collectively. The community also has common standards that are accepted by every single member. In this essay, Polanyi describes three standards:
1. Plausibility: degree that something can be true or attainable.
2. Scientific value composed of accuracy, systematic importance and the intrinsic interest of subject matter.
3. Originality: degree of surprise aroused in other scientists.
The first two standards enforce conformity while the third one dissent.
“The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it”.
Networks among fields are vital; scientists don’t close their mind to other branches or fields because they understand that they can learn and connect knowledge.
Authority is between scientists, not above them. It’s more like a network, in which all of them have the same share of responsibility. They employ their standards both individually and collectively. It’s a collective organization that depends entirely on the initiatives of individuals.
“You can kill or mutilate the advance of science, you cannot shape it. For it can advance only by essentially unpredictable steps, pursuing problems of its own, and the practical benefits of these advances will be incidental and hence doubly predictable”
“…Initiative of original minds, choosing their own problems and carrying out their investigation, according to their own lights”.
“Discovery comes only to a mind immersed in its pursuit. For such work the scientists needs a secluded place among like-minded colleagues who keenly share his aims and sharply control his performances. The soil of academic science must be exterritorial in order to secure its control by scientific opinion”.
By accepting the authority of science, we accept the totality of all these value judgments. Scientific tradition cultivates and fosters originality because it cultivates subversion. It’s not static; it’s a dynamic society that endeavors re-creation, re-thinking and re-doing to keep pushing the society forward.
The Republic of Scientists is a Society of Explorers.
“The explorers strive towards a hidden reality, for the sake of intellectual satisfaction. And as they satisfy themselves, they enlighten all men and are thus helping society to fulfill its obligation towards intellectual self-improvement. Men don’t do as they please but they have the right to speak the truth as they know it”.
This essay definitely inspires me to cultivate both my individual standards and my community standards. By reading this essay, I understood why MPC is named after Polanyi. Reading it was fascinating, breathtaking and inspiring. I know that this kind of culture should be impregnated in every single institution and I’m certain that it would push humanity to a whole other kind of ethics and culture.