Erland Lagerroth 		Erland Lagerroth:


Who are the misleaders?


The association "Vetenskap och Folkbildning" (Science and Adult Education) appointed me "Årets förvillare 1998" (Misleader of the Year 1998). And they were kind enough to make my activities even more visible by drawing attention to two of my publications: the book Världen och vetandet sjunger på nytt (The Reenchantment of Science and the World) and the essay "Från kaos till kosmos och tillbaka igen. Om två sorters vetenskap" ("From Chaos to Cosmos and Back Again. On Two Kinds of Science") in the magazine Tvärsnitt nr 2/1998.

I thank them for their help. And look upon the promotion as a recognition. Evidently my activities have reached such proportions, such penetration, that they must be branded by the right-thinking ones, appointing me Misleader of the year.

What kind of association is it, then, that considers itself called and competent to pass such sentences (they also appoint a "Folk educator" of the year)? From their home page on Internet one can learn that it has taken as its task "to promote folk-education on methods and results of science. The association takes as its special task, in a free moulding of public opinion, to fight against erroneous ideas that are found in questions that can be decided upon scientifically".

To fight erroneous ideas in a free moulding of public opinion - that sounds a little queer. Where is freedom, if it is already settled what ideas are wrong? The home page, however, informs us of much more: of the board of the association and its magazine Folkvett (Folk-knowledge, but the name really means "manners", telling about the disciplinary ideas of the association). Furthermore, it offers a list of misleaders and educators of earlier years, links of interest for sceptics etc. (Scepticism is a key word).

The one and only thing that is not given, is a definition of the central concept in the activities, ideas and ideals of the association: SCIENCE. What science is, evidently goes whithout saying, and it is just as self-evident that science is something unproblematically good that must be defended against all "erroneous ideas".

All this is a matter of scientific fundamentalism.

Here I would like to draw attention to what a linguist professor, Sven Öhman, writes in his book Svindlande perspektiv. En kritik av populärvetenskapen (Dizzying Perspectives. A Criticism of Popular Science) (1993). "The habitual working day of science, the life of the majority of scientists", Öhman declares, "is more greyish [than those of popular science], dominated by routine tasks, mostly populated by rather ordinary people, each one usually competent in his field, it is true, but as a rule not particularly genial, brave, or resolute persons. You run your teaching and research, usually without a lot of fuss."

Unfortunately this is probably a rather true picture within its limits, and the continuation is not less true. The researchers are people of profession, it is stressed, everybody carries on a trade. "So, facing unknown, revolutionary ideas, they quite automatically take up a sceptic attitude. Before entering on anything, they first want to see that it is feasible."

You certainly must ask how these greyish sceptics ever will be able to see that anything is "feasible"? Evidently some less sceptic and more colourful person must tackle the unknown in order to try to widen the limits of science. Öhman does not say anything about this aspect of the matter, but he is the more evident, when it comes to the question how the cautious scientist will be able to decide if, perchance, the new idea is something to go in for:

"If, on the other hand, one day it is clear that somebody really has succeeded in making a breakthrough with quite new ideas - so well that established authorities begin to speak warmly about it in well-known key note lectures - then the attitudes can change. Then you might see an opening for success of your own [...]. You are willing to take a chance, when the risk can be calculated and does not seem too big." (p 111)

I don't think I ever met a more evident declaration of loyalty towards establishment and authorities in a serious publication. We are close to "Hamilton's conclusion" as it has been rescued from oblivion by Swedish writer Sven Lindqvist in his book with this very title: "If you take into consideration those aspects, that in relation to estates should be taken into consideration, then you find that all is at its best just as it is now" (p 7, 12). Not to speak of the (fictional) school-master John Chronschough's world wise words: "Nothing is happier for a man than to learn from the beginning, to revere and pay homage to the authorities in all respects."

From such a society of science you cannot expect any great innovations and progresses, but the more of what has been called "the intellectual / institutional inertia of the academic enterprise" (Nicholas Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom, (1984) 1987, p 1 note 1).

Evidently the association "Vetenskap och Folkbildning" represents a society of this kind. Of course the consequence will be that anybody problematizing Science, and even being bold enough to think of "Two kinds of science", is a "misleader". The society does not tolerate that Science is problematized, just as the Marxists in their time did not tolerate that Marxism was problematized. What we have here is a narrow sect, permeated by the usual uncritical belief in the doctrine of faith they have taken as their mission to administer and defend.

And, furthermore, here is the explanation of the justification that is given for the choice of me as "Misleader of the year": "/.../ for his insistent attempts to make a superficial mystifying attitude to natural science academically respectable." For those who already know for certain what science is without ever critically having thought it over, it is of course both misleading, mystifying and erroneous when somebody does exactly this: rethinks and problematizes what is looked upon as self-evident. To make this "attitude to natural science academically respectable" is, by the way, easy enough, as my main master, Ilya Prigogine, got the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1977.

So, instead it is the association itself with its fixation at scientific ideals from the 17th century, ideals which have led us to to-day's crisis for humanity, the biosphere and the Earth, that is the great misleader, the misleader of adult education. Every year.

The guard of light - the right-thinking ones - stand up for darkness.


Swedish text

Erland Lagerroth's homepage

Return to page 1


www.sokaren.se/INDEX114.HTML