One striking example of how political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge
involves what we know about the age and evolution of planet Earth. In earlier centuries the
official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to which the
Earth’s age is determined to be about 6,000 years. IfWestern thinkers had continued to yield to
the ostensible authority of the Church, the fields of structural and historical geology would
never have advanced beyond the blind acceptance of this contention as fact.
A more modern example of how yielding to political authority can impede the advancement
of knowledge involves the Soviet Refusenik movement of the 1920s. During this time period
the Soviet government attempted not only to control the direction and the goals of its scientists’
research but also to distort the outcome of that research. During the 1920s the Soviet
government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and
libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were engaged in
research that the state viewed as a potential threat to its power and authority. Not surprisingly,
during this time period no significant advances in scientific knowledge occurred under the
auspices of the Soviet government.
However, given a political climate that facilitates free thought and honest intellectual inquiry,
great advances in knowledge can be made by actually embracing certain forms of "authority."
A good example involves modern computer technology. Only by building on, or embracing,
certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based
semi-conductor technology. Although new biotechnology research suggests that organic,
biochemical processors will replace artificial semi-conductors as the computers of the future, it
would be inappropriate to characterize this leap in knowledge as a rejection of authority.
In sum, to the extent that political authority imposes artificial constraints on knowledge, I
agree that advances in knowledge might require rejection of authority. Otherwise, in my
observation advances in knowledge more typically embrace and build on authoritative
scientific principles and laws, and do not require the rejection of any type of authority.
Issue 80
"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists,
but the general welfare of all its people."The speaker claims that great advances in knowledge necessarily involve rejection of
authority. To the extent that political authority impedes such advances, I agree with this claim.
Otherwise, in my view most advances in knowledge actually embrace certain forms of authority,
rather than rejecting authority out of hand.
One striking example of how political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge
involves what we know about the age and evolution of planet Earth. In earlier centuries the
88
official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to which the
Earth’s age is determined to be about 6,000 years. IfWestern thinkers had continued to yield to
the ostensible authority of the Church, the fields of structural and historical geology would
never have advanced beyond the blind acceptance of this contention as fact.
A more modern example of how yielding to political authority can impede the advancement
of knowledge involves the Soviet Refusenik movement of the 1920s. During this time period
the Soviet government attempted not only to control the direction and the goals of its scientists’
research but also to distort the outcome of that research. During the 1920s the Soviet
government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and
libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were engaged in
research that the state viewed as a potential threat to its power and authority. Not surprisingly,
during this time period no significant advances in scientific knowledge occurred under the
auspices of the Soviet government.
However, given a political climate that facilitates free thought and honest intellectual inquiry,
great advances in knowledge can be made by actually embracing certain forms of "authority."
A good example involves modern computer technology. Only by building on, or embracing,
certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based
semi-conductor technology. Although new biotechnology research suggests that organic,
biochemical processors will replace artificial semi-conductors as the computers of the future, it
would be inappropriate to characterize this leap in knowledge as a rejection of authority.In sum, to the extent that political authority imposes artificial constraints on knowledge, I
agree that advances in knowledge might require rejection of authority. Otherwise, in my
observation advances in knowledge more typically embrace and build on authoritative
scientific principles and laws, and do not require the rejection of any type of authority.
Issue 81
"International relations can never be completely harmonious because many cultures do not
share the same values."
Does a nation’s greatness lie in the general welfare of its people rather than in the
achievements of its artists, rulers, and scientists, as the speaker claims? I find this claim
problematic in two respects. First, it fails to define "general welfare." Second, it assumes that
the sorts of achievements that the speaker cites have little to do with a nation’s general
welfare--when in fact they have everything to do with it.
At first blush the speaker’s claim might appear to have considerable merit. After all, the
overriding imperative for any democratic state is to enhance the general welfare of its citizenry.
Yet the speaker fails to provide a clear litmus test for measuring that welfare. When we speak
of "promoting the general welfare," the following aims come to mind: public health and safety,
security against military invasions, individual autonomy and freedom, cultural richness, and
overall comfort--that is, a high standard of living. Curiously, it is our scientists, artists, and
political leaders-----or so-called "rulers" who by way of their achievements bring these aims
into fruition. Thus, in order to determine what makes a nation great it is necessary to examine
the different sorts of individual achievements that ostensibly promote these aims.
Few would disagree that many scientific achievements serve to enhance a nation’s general
89
welfare. Advances in the health sciences have enhanced our physical well-being, comfort, and
life span. Advances in technology have enabled us to travel to more places, communicate with
more people from different walks of life, and learn about the world from our desktops.
Advances in physics and engineering make our abodes and other buildings safer, and enable
us to travel to more places, and to travel to more distant places, with greater safety and speed.