THE CONTRADICTORY PATTERNS OF BELIEF IN SCIENCE & POLITICS (adapted from : "THE FABER BOOK OF SCIENCE)

Recently, I came across this interesting book – “The Faber Book of Science (edited by John Carey)”. Having been associated with the business of science in my professional career so far, either directly or indirectly, the title of this publication caught my attention instantly. On browsing through a few pages at the outset, two paragraphs in the book struck a deep chord.

In the table below, I am attempting to summarize the essence of the two paragraphs from the book which illustrate the antithetical relationship between science and politics. I have also blended a few of my own thoughts on the subject with Carey's work in the table.

Probably the most notable difference between science and politics is the perspective on power, resources and control. We notice examples of this difference almost daily; hardly any newspaper headline or TV news channel today is devoid of this phenomenon. Various dimensions of power as well as control of natural and synthesized resources engulf our lives in more ways than one, prompting me to wonder if there is really something out there called “true freedom” or “absolute truth” today.

Digressing a bit from the topic, an interesting element is the idea of “Political Science” which is taught as a subject in our educational institutions. The Wikipedia definition reads as follows : Political science is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government, and the analysis of political activity and political behavior. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics which is commonly thought of as determining of the distribution of power and resources.

On reading this definition, a question flashed in my mind : is there something called “Scientific Politics”?

Sure there is!

I was pleasantly surprised when I found the corresponding page on Wikipedia. It did not have an extensive coverage as Political Science, though. Here is its Wikipedia definition : Scientific politics was a late 19th-century political theory based on the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte. Proponents of scientific politics advocated a society and political system that was to be organized in accordance with the laws of nature.

I am totally unaware as to what extent the 19th century theory of “scientific politics” holds good today, but I was wondering if we could adapt our thinking towards evolving a more modern definition for this term, keeping today’s context in view.

Can we infuse scientific rationality and objectivity into politics? If politics can invade the realm of science, can a countering permeation strategy to scientifically "rationalize" politics be conceived?  Is this idea practical, or even feasible?

If we could achieve this feat, maybe Nicolo Machiavelli or Chanakya wouldn't find jobs today....

Thoughts, anyone?