"The Republic of Science"
Its Political and Economic Theory
In this essay, Michael Polanyi would suggest how a scientific community is organized. He says that this organization resembles in some features to a free society and to how free markets work. One of his main claims is that, similar to the fact that we cannot plan for an economy due to its nature of spontaneous order, so is a scientific community not capable of being planned. A scientific community is a self-coordinating process between scientists.
His argument is as follows:
Scientists, when pursuing their own personal interests and initiatives, are cooperating as members of this organization. Here we can see the principle of cooperation.
“Under this system, each helper will act on his own initiative, by responding to the latest achievements of the others, and the completion of their joint task will be greatly accelerated.” (page 55)
This means that the independent initiatives of the scientists would in some sense work together, forming something in common. Scientists would also adjust their work (initiatives) according to the work of others (e.g. new discoveries, theories, etc.; i.e. the published work of other scientists), making it a case of coordination by mutual adjustment. This is not unplanned self-coordination, similar to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Just as the system of prices is for producers and consumers in an economy, so is the published works for the scientists in a scientific community. Again, because of its self-coordinating nature, a person or group of persons (Royal Society for example) cannot deliberately plan this community.
“Any attempt to organize the group of helpers under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that the single person directing them from the centre. It would, in effect, paralyse their cooperation.” (page 56)
Now, the contributions of a scientist would depend on the standards of scientific merit accepted by the scientific community. This scientific merit depends on three criteria.
1. A Sufficient Degree of Plausibility
2. Scientific Value (3 coefficients: accuracy, systematic importance, and intrinsic interest of the subject-matter).
3. Originality
We must clarify that even though a scientific community is based on self-coordination and cannot be planned, it does have an authority. This authority is between scientists and is based on the scientific opinion each one has, and the value of each opinion would depend on the reputation or merit of each scientist.
“But the authority of scientific opinion remains essentially mutual; it is established between scientists, not above them. Scientists exercise their authority over each other.” (page 60)
“Science is what it is, in virtue of the way in which scientific authority constantly eliminates, or else recognizes at various levels of merit, contributions offered to science.” (page 68)
“The authority of science is essentially traditional. But this tradition upholds an authority which cultivates originality.” (page 69)
Going back to the fact that scientific research cannot be guided, Polanyi says:
“Any attempt at guiding scientific research towards a purpose other than its own is an attempt to deflect it from the advancement of science… 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 unpredictable.” (page 62)
Now, the famous quote…
“Discovery comes only to a mind immersed in its pursuit. For such work the scientist 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.” (page 67)
The Republic of Science in a Nutshell
“The Republic of Science shows us an association of independent initiatives, combined towards an indeterminate achievement. It is disciplined and motivated by serving a traditional authority, but this authority is dynamic; its continued existence depends on its constant~ self-renewal through the originality of its followers.
The Republic of Science is a Society of Explorers. Such a society strives towards an unknown future, which it believes to be accessible and worth achieving. In the case of scientists, the explorers strive towards a hidden reality, for the sake of intellectual satisfaction. And as they satisfy them- selves, they enlighten all men and are thus helping society to fulfill its obligation towards intellectual self-improvement.
A free society may be seen to be bent in its entirety on exploring self- improvement-every kind of self-improvement. This suggests a generalization of the principles governing the Republic of Science. It appears that a society bent on discovery must advance by supporting independent initiatives, coordinating themselves mutually to each other. Such adjustment may include rivalries and opposing responses which, in society as a whole, will be far more frequent than they are within science. Even so, all these independent initiatives must accept for their guidance a traditional authority, enforcing its own self-renewal by cultivating originality among its followers.
Since a dynamic orthodoxy claims to be a guide in search of truth, it implicitly grants the right to opposition in the name of truth--truth being taken to comprise here, for brevity, all manner of excellence that we recognize as the ideal of self-improvement. The freedom of the individual safeguarded by such a society is therefore – to use the term of Hegel – of a positive kind. It has no bearing on the right of men to do as they please; but assures them the right to speak the truth as they know it. Such a society does not offer particularly wide private freedoms. It is the cultivation of public liberties that distinguishes a free society, as defined here.
In this view of a free society, both its liberties and its servitudes are deter- mined by its striving for self-improvement, which in its turn is determined by the intimations of truths yet to be revealed, calling on men to reveal them.” (page 71 – 72)
His argument is as follows:
Scientists, when pursuing their own personal interests and initiatives, are cooperating as members of this organization. Here we can see the principle of cooperation.
“Under this system, each helper will act on his own initiative, by responding to the latest achievements of the others, and the completion of their joint task will be greatly accelerated.” (page 55)
This means that the independent initiatives of the scientists would in some sense work together, forming something in common. Scientists would also adjust their work (initiatives) according to the work of others (e.g. new discoveries, theories, etc.; i.e. the published work of other scientists), making it a case of coordination by mutual adjustment. This is not unplanned self-coordination, similar to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Just as the system of prices is for producers and consumers in an economy, so is the published works for the scientists in a scientific community. Again, because of its self-coordinating nature, a person or group of persons (Royal Society for example) cannot deliberately plan this community.
“Any attempt to organize the group of helpers under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that the single person directing them from the centre. It would, in effect, paralyse their cooperation.” (page 56)
Now, the contributions of a scientist would depend on the standards of scientific merit accepted by the scientific community. This scientific merit depends on three criteria.
1. A Sufficient Degree of Plausibility
2. Scientific Value (3 coefficients: accuracy, systematic importance, and intrinsic interest of the subject-matter).
3. Originality
We must clarify that even though a scientific community is based on self-coordination and cannot be planned, it does have an authority. This authority is between scientists and is based on the scientific opinion each one has, and the value of each opinion would depend on the reputation or merit of each scientist.
“But the authority of scientific opinion remains essentially mutual; it is established between scientists, not above them. Scientists exercise their authority over each other.” (page 60)
“Science is what it is, in virtue of the way in which scientific authority constantly eliminates, or else recognizes at various levels of merit, contributions offered to science.” (page 68)
“The authority of science is essentially traditional. But this tradition upholds an authority which cultivates originality.” (page 69)
Going back to the fact that scientific research cannot be guided, Polanyi says:
“Any attempt at guiding scientific research towards a purpose other than its own is an attempt to deflect it from the advancement of science… 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 unpredictable.” (page 62)
Now, the famous quote…
“Discovery comes only to a mind immersed in its pursuit. For such work the scientist 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.” (page 67)
The Republic of Science in a Nutshell
“The Republic of Science shows us an association of independent initiatives, combined towards an indeterminate achievement. It is disciplined and motivated by serving a traditional authority, but this authority is dynamic; its continued existence depends on its constant~ self-renewal through the originality of its followers.
The Republic of Science is a Society of Explorers. Such a society strives towards an unknown future, which it believes to be accessible and worth achieving. In the case of scientists, the explorers strive towards a hidden reality, for the sake of intellectual satisfaction. And as they satisfy them- selves, they enlighten all men and are thus helping society to fulfill its obligation towards intellectual self-improvement.
A free society may be seen to be bent in its entirety on exploring self- improvement-every kind of self-improvement. This suggests a generalization of the principles governing the Republic of Science. It appears that a society bent on discovery must advance by supporting independent initiatives, coordinating themselves mutually to each other. Such adjustment may include rivalries and opposing responses which, in society as a whole, will be far more frequent than they are within science. Even so, all these independent initiatives must accept for their guidance a traditional authority, enforcing its own self-renewal by cultivating originality among its followers.
Since a dynamic orthodoxy claims to be a guide in search of truth, it implicitly grants the right to opposition in the name of truth--truth being taken to comprise here, for brevity, all manner of excellence that we recognize as the ideal of self-improvement. The freedom of the individual safeguarded by such a society is therefore – to use the term of Hegel – of a positive kind. It has no bearing on the right of men to do as they please; but assures them the right to speak the truth as they know it. Such a society does not offer particularly wide private freedoms. It is the cultivation of public liberties that distinguishes a free society, as defined here.
In this view of a free society, both its liberties and its servitudes are deter- mined by its striving for self-improvement, which in its turn is determined by the intimations of truths yet to be revealed, calling on men to reveal them.” (page 71 – 72)