With the rise of technology and often impenetrable science, societies run the risk of becoming technocratic; with a widening divide between experts and citizens. Under such conditions, for democracy to function, citizens must be able to perceive the difference between real experts and charlatans. To do this, Mauro Dorato argues, we must not only increase scientific literacy, but we must also better understand the social rules at play in scientific fields, such as peer review and repeatability of proofs, in order to tell the different between the expert and the charlatan.
How specialisation can threaten democracy
Contemporary democracies are under threat. Many regard the unstoppable immigration waves as a danger to their possessions and as an occupation of their territories to be defended by erecting walls. The growing inequality and impoverishment of the middle class within democratic states can generate authoritarian drives that lead to limitations of civil rights.
However, in order the explain the current crisis of representative democracies, other serious problems must be considered, caused by the widening gap between the principle of competence necessary for rational deliberations – provided by scientists and more generally by experts – and the principle of the autonomy of choice, a fundamental right that non-omniscient citizens living in a democracy must enjoy. The prevailing misinformation and disinformation made possible by the superluminal transmission of information via social media must therefore be taken into serious consideration too.
___
Unlike the natural sciences, the moral sciences have not undergone a conceptual upheaval that freed them from an outdated method of inquiry.
___
Join the conversation