Science Publique
What is Science Publique’s purpose?
The aim of the Science Publique association is to promote and encourage the media integration of scientific thought, the related methods of knowledge-building, its standards, expectations and conclusions, as well as the members of the scientific community itself. Science Publique’s actions are aimed at all publics, without restriction.
What affiliations does Science Publique have?
Science Publique is not affiliated with any company, organization, government or political party.
Its activities are carried out in complete independence.
How does Science Publique intend to achieve its goals?
The project on which we are currently concentrating our efforts consists in developing a digital device called “fields”, enabling contributors from the scientific community to carry out analyses of public discourses, and then to make the results accessible to everyone – and much more besides.
The simplest and most directly accessible product of these analyses will be a scientific compatibility score, reflecting the compatibility of any given discourse with science as it stands, in terms of the facts or data it mobilizes but also, where applicable, in terms of the methods it adopts and the conclusions it draws. This simple element should make it possible to go beyond current fact-checking tools, which only consider the facts mobilized, and not the interpretations proposed. Ultimately, we would like to see a foundation set up to allocate funds to research projects that are scientifically relevant but cannot be funded at present, and in which the contributors to fields would have significant decision-making power.
As an association dedicated to the defense and promotion of scientific thought in the media, Science Publique is also likely to intervene in the media, organize events, produce publications, or engage in any other activity serving its raison d’être.
fields
What is “fields”?
“fields” is a digital device currently under development, comprising a website and a plug-in. It aims to fulfill three main functions:
– To associate public discourses available on the Internet with the bodies (media, companies, public figures, etc.) that either produced or disseminated them;
– To enable contributors from the scientific community to analyze these discourses from their own points of view (reference discipline, specialties, theoretical orientations), in a relatively standardized way, thanks to a semi-contributive framework.
The aim of these analyses is not only to assess the compatibility of the discourses considered with the achievements of science (compatibility of the facts mobilized, the methods adopted and the conclusions drawn), but also to characterize them in a more critical mode, by identifying the nature of these discourses and, as far as possible, their presuppositions;
– Finally, to make the results of these analyses accessible to the general public, according to several degrees of complexity, the simplest of which is a scientific compatibility score, in particular by presenting on dedicated pages the average characteristics (average score, most common characteristics, etc.) associated with the discourses produced or disseminated by different bodies.
In order to increase the readability of the proposed system, it will include pages of critical definitions, i.e. not, as in the case of “wiki-type” services, to arrive at a single, consensual definition, but to present a plurality of perspectives on the same object, the same notion.
The principle guiding the construction of fields is to leave as much autonomy as possible to contributors, while preserving the accessibility and transparency of the system. Our aim is not to impose a priori standards, but to create the best possible conditions for the development and self-regulation of a research community.
To this end, we intend to develop a basic framework designed to ensure the standardization and structuring necessary for the project, but which is intended to be enriched and, if necessary, reformed.
An application and various additional functionalities are also being studied:
– The provision of additional resources, particularly of a documentary nature, as well as the introduction of forums or discussion feeds enabling direct contact between researchers and the general public;
– Social networking features, including messaging, profile pages and news feeds;
– Web search or content suggestion functionalities, taking advantage of the corpus of analyses gathered to direct users towards content that is more relevant from a scientific perspective.
Other lines of development are also being considered, concerning the role of Science Publique, its relations with its various audiences and institutional bodies, and its economic sustainability.
What are the criteria and procedures for recruiting contributors?
In keeping with fields’ principle of leaving contributors as much autonomy as possible, the recruitment of contributors is subject to a single requirement: that a jury of randomly selected contributors unanimously deem the candidate’s ability to make the expected contributions to be sufficient, and that this jury is able to establish the candidate’s areas of expertise, which will determine the themes on which he or she is likely to be asked to contribute.
Science Publique does, however, take the liberty of recommending the following recruitment criteria:
– Completion of a thesis in a basic science discipline;
– Publication of at least one scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal.
However, the candidate’s ability to carry out the expected tasks remains at the jury’s discretion.
A contributor’s ability to perform these tasks is always subject to reassessment by a randomly selected jury, should his or her contributions be repeatedly reported, or should statistical anomalies be identified in his or her contribution activities.
How is contributor impartiality ensured ?
Within fields, the impartiality of contributors means that their analytical activities are not affected by any conflicts of interest or personal preferences that might disrupt the way they mobilize scientific knowledge and methods.
We intend to ensure this impartiality through five measures:
– Firstly, through an admission procedure that sanctions their ability to mobilize the specific perspective that is science, its methods, its knowledge, its notions, according to their specific areas of competence, to carry out analyses whose criteria and procedures are not dependent on their personal interests or preferences;
– Independently of this admission procedure, each contributor is required to complete an affidavit in which he/she: (a) declares that he/she is a member of the association; and (b) declares that he/she is a member of the association.(i) undertakes not to (i) undertakes not to use his or her status to favour any individual or legal entity on the grounds of economic interests, political or national affinities, family or sentimental ties, or any other common interest or relationship; (ii)
undertakes to inform Science Publique, without delay, of any situation constituting a conflict of interest or likely to lead to a conflict of interest; (iii) declares that he/she has not consented to, sought, sought to obtain or accepted any advantage, financial or otherwise, in favor of or from any person whatsoever constituting an illegal or corrupt practice, directly or indirectly, as an inducement or reward in connection with the present project;
– Secondly, by drawing lots: contributors do not choose the speeches they are asked to analyze – should they nevertheless wish to analyze one on their own initiative, the analysis produced will be counted separately and marked as such;
– By multiplying analyses of the same discourse, so that different and complementary perspectives can be brought to bear on it. Our aim here is not to achieve pure neutrality of point of view, but to ensure both the transparency of the points of view adopted (disciplines, specialties, schools of thought, etc.) and their diversity, by multiplying the points of view on the same public discourse;
– Lastly, through peer review of contributions, as is the case within the scientific community itself in this case, this type of review is carried out by juries drawn by lot, and can take place in particular following reports or the identification of statistical anomalies.
Are contributors paid for their work?
Our current financial resources do not allow us to remunerate the contributors to fields, or at least not if we wish to offer the general public free access to the produced resources.
However, one of our long-term objectives is to generate sufficient income to ensure direct remuneration of our contributors, while leaving them the possibility of redirecting the funds acquired towards scientifically relevant research projects facing a lack of funding.
Can contributors be anonymous?
Contributor profiles are nominative but can be anonymized. We have chosen to leave this option open to contributors in order to allow free expression for those who, for example, feel obliged to maintain a public reserve due to their professional activity, or who simply wish to preserve their privacy.
Nevertheless, the necessary checks are carried out when each contributor is admitted, and each contributor’s profile is characterized by his or her scientific discipline of reference, fields of specialization, and affiliations with particular theoritical currents.
In addition, the principle of peer review continues to apply to all contributors’ activities after admission, so that the analyses they produce may be reviewed by a randomly selected jury in the event of repeated reports or anomalies identified by our services.
The analyses
What do the analyses consist in?
The analyses carried out by the contributors are essentially in two parts.
In the first, they aim to assess the scientific compatibility of the discourse in question, with regard to the contributor’s field of expertise. This evaluation concerns :
– The facts or data put forward in the discourse under consideration;
– The methods used to draw conclusions from these facts or data,
– The conclusions drawn.
It results in a scientific compatibility score ranging from AAA to F, determined by certain thresholds based, among other things, on the distinction between “approximations”, “errors”, “misunderstandings” and “serious misunderstandings”.
The second part consists of a critical analysis aimed at establishing the nature of the discourse under consideration, as well as its presuppositions. It is based on a tree structure comprising certain generic categories, and is intended to be freely completed by contributors, who have the possibility of proposing categories, subject to validation by their peers, some of whom, drawn at random, can confirm or invalidate them, or propose other versions.
This tree structure will be made public after a test phase aimed at establishing its relevance and, if necessary, making the necessary adjustments.
What is the “science compatibility score” ?
fields’ science compatibility score is derived from the analyses produced by its contributors.
It reflects the assessment of the compatibility of any given discourse with the data, methods and conclusions of the various scientific disciplines of the contributors involved.
In its current version, this score has the following seven levels:
AAA – Reliable scientific discourse from a recognized source; recommended attitude:
“trust”;
AA – The considered discourse is fully compatible with a scientific perspective; well-executed cuted popularization;
A – The considered discourse is compatible with a scientific perspective, remaining approximate but presenting only a small risk of major misunderstandings; recommended attitude: “relative confidence”;
B – The considered discourse is globally compatible with a scientific perspective, but remains very approximate and may contain errors or misunderstandings; recommended attitude: “relative mistrust”;
C – The considered discourse is globally incompatible with a scientific perspective, or presenting serious deficiencies in one of the three indicators of scientific compatibility (data, method, purpose); recommended attitude: “great mistrust”;
D – The considered discourse is incompatible with a scientific perspective, with serious deficiencies in two of the three indicators of scientific compatibility (data, method, purpose); recommended attitude: “very distrustful”;
F – The considered discourse is radically incompatible with a scientific perspective, presenting serious deficiencies in each of the three indicators of scientific compatibility (data, method, purpose); recommended attitude: “absolute distrust”;
How are the analyses carried out?
Discourses are proposed for analysis to contributors according to their disciplines of reference, their specialties, and the theoretical orientations or schools of thought to which they belong.
These proposals are made in such a way as to maintain a balance between, on the one hand, maximizing the diversity of perspectives brought to bear on the discourses to be analyzed, and on the other, maintaining compatibility between the themes concerned and the contributors’ fields of specialization.
Contributors are free to accept or refuse to take part in the analysis of any discourse proposed to them, and they can justify their refusal, for example, by stating that their skills are unsuited to the themes concerned.
Which discourses or types of discourse can be analyzed?
Any type of discourse may be proposed for analysis by contributors, provided that it is accessible via an Internet link and has been held publicly, or made public without its dissemination contravening any legal provision.
In practice, we give priority to highly publicized speeches by institutions or public figures.
The number of speeches available online is immense and constantly growing. How can the produced analyses acheive any degree of generality?
It is true that that the number of discourses that can be analyzed within the framework provided by fields, and the speed at which they are produced, are far too great for an exhaustive analysis – and all the more so as several scientists from different disciplines, would be expected for each of these discourses.
On the other hand, the number of bodies (media, companies, public figures, etc.) producing or disseminating discourses that gain a certain amount of publicity is much smaller.
So, given that our aim is not to analyze all available public discourse, nor to do so in real time, we need only analyze a relatively small number, whose common characteristics can then be related, with varying degrees of confidence, to the discourse of a particular instance in general. Each user is then responsible for interpreting the information provided.
What is the average time spent by a contributor on a contribution?
The time spent by a contributor on a discourse analysis is variable, since it depends on its form (written or audio/video), its nature, its complexity, as well as various factors specific to each contributor.
Our current objective is to achieve an average analysis time of fifteen minutes, by taking advantage of various levers, such as the length of selected speeches, the implementation of tools to increase their readability, and the ergonomics of the contribution interface. Feedback from our contributors will be essential in fine-tuning this objective.
How are the speeches chosen for analysis?
The speeches to be analyzed are freely proposed by users and contributors. They may also be proposed by members of our team. In the latter case, two criteria are used: their degree of mediatization, and their relevance to the analysis methods adopted, which do not lend themselves well to certain types of discourse, such as poetic discourse.
Can a contributor analyze a discourse that he or she has proposed to be analyzed?
This may be the case, but the analysis performed by the contributor will not be taken into account in the same way as analyses proposed by random selection. As a general rule, analyses of discourse carried out by contributors on their own initiative, outside the randomization system, are marked as such in order to warn users of their possible bias.
General or theoretical questions
How does your proposal compare with a fact-checking service?
The development of fields is largely due to the fact that current fact-checking systems remain incapable of achieving the general objective assigned to them, namely to define a perimeter of truth within which a healthy public debate can take place. We see three main reasons for this failure.
In our view, the first reason for the failure of fact-checking services lies in their inability to empower their audiences.
In a context of mistrust such as the one we’re currently experiencing, the fact-checker is only one media player among many, and it’s not obvious that he or she is more trustworthy than another.
Yet these services can only inform their audiences by asking them to trust them, without any real guarantees, and without in any way increasing their capacity to grasp for themselves the discourses they are confronted with on a daily basis, and to build up reliable knowledge on their own.
In short, they can neither offer their audiences guarantees justifying their trust in them, nor enable them to do without guarantees by increasing their capacity to take hold of the information flows they are confronted with. As a result, they are bound to fail in convincing audiences whoare not already convinced by them.
The second cause is the tragic imbalance between the effort required to demonstrate, in detail, the false or misleading nature of a discourse, and the ease and economy of means with which it is possible to produce and disseminate such a discourse, today more than ever.
The analysis of media discourse in its classic form, including the identification of biases, rhetorical figures, manipulative devices, etc., faces the same problem, with the same consequences.
As a result of this imbalance, fact-checking is doomed not only to lag behind, but to be continually submerged and remain marginal in a media immensity which, in its current form, favours outrageous, succinct and simplifying discourse.
In our view, this obstacle is not inevitable, but to overcome it, we need to put in place standardization and systematization mechanisms that allow a certain degree of cumulative analysis.
This is what we propose to do, in particular by associating the public discourses analyzed with the bodies that either produced or disseminated them, and by making the analyses produced accessible in their entirety.
The third and most profound reason is that, by their very nature, these systems cannot operate in the field of interpretation, since they lead us to seek truth only in the “factual”, and are based on a rejection of the very activity of interpretation, which is always suspected of involving one or other “bias”.
Yet it is the realm of interpretation that remains the focus of debate. Not only is there nothing to prevent accurate facts from being selected, interpreted and put at the service of this or that narrative, but we never even have access to pure facts: only to facts from a given point of view, and within certain interpretative frameworks.
We can’t do without these frameworks, because we live in them, through them. In the same way that we don’t speak “in general”, but necessarily in a given language, we don’t think “in general”, nor do we act “in general”, but within certain instituted, largely inherited frameworks – frameworks which may, for example, be technical, legal or artistic in nature, or which may relate to a certain trade, religion, beliefs or traditions, or consist of a certain way of producing knowledge, whatever its nature -technical, scientific, religious, etc. – or which may be the result of a certain type of activity. In other words, we don’t have access to pure factuality, free of any “bias”, but only to an interpreted reality.
The challenge, then, is not only, or even primarily, to establish a division between “facts” and “non-facts”, but to bring to light the inapparent frameworks on which all the discourses to which we are collectively exposed are based, so as to give each and every one of us the means to better understand these discourses, in their depth, in their presuppositions, and to act accordingly.
Since we cannot escape interpretation, rather than seeking a common ground that would be independent of it, we must collectively know and master the way we interpret reality, acquiring minimal critical capacities that enable us to identify and understand, in their relativity, the different ways in which, individually and collectively, we conceive and to a certain extent produce our reality, whether material or symbolic.
Only then will we be able to increase our individual and collective autonomy, make our societies fairer, and put ourselves in a position to take on the ecological and social challenges of our time.
It is therefore just as absurd to try to adopt a “neutral” point of view as it is to claim to speak all possible languages with the same words. To deny this is to deny one’s own lack of neutrality, to conceal one’s own “biases” and dogmatisms, and ultimately to impose them on others.
In the natural sciences, as in the social sciences, it is the characterization of the observer’s point of view that is a prerequisite for the production of any knowledge, while the naive quest for a supposedly neutral observer has long been rejected.
We prefer transparency and the elucidation of points of view to such supposed neutrality.
Of course, we are not suggesting that fact-checking is useless, but rather that it is ineffective on its own and needs to be complemented by other means.
In our view, the latter must combine scientific knowledge and standards with a critical approach: in this case, with an effort to elucidate the presuppositions of a given discourse, i.e. the knowledge, beliefs, representations or other elements it holds to be real or true, and which make this discourse possible or which are implied by it.
Fact-checking thus appears as the first step in a discourse analysis, to which are added, from a variety of perspectives and scientific disciplines :
– An examination of the scientific compatibility of the discourse under consideration (including the establishment of an overall score);
– A critical analysis of the discourse’s presuppositions;
– In-depth resources provided by contributors, and the possibility of contacting them;
All of which provides each user with the means to enhance his or her skills, in complete autonomy, with a dedicated community.
What do you call “autonomy”?
We call “autonomy” the ability of a person or group to direct their existence according to principles and goals chosen by them, and not imposed or simply inherited.
We believe it is crucial to distinguish between individual autonomy and collective autonomy, in order to best serve Science Publique’s objectives.
Indeed, perhaps never before have we been so individually free to shape our lives as we wish.
Never have we had at our disposal finer and more complete knowledge of the material world, of our planet, of human societies and cultures. And yet, our inability to collectively take resolute action to limit the consequences of the current ecological catastrophe – in other words, to organize ourselves to solve a problem as basic and consensual as that of our own survival – never ceases to amaze.
We understand this paradoxical situation, characterized by a striking collective powerlessness, as the product of an increase in our individual autonomy to the detriment of our collective autonomy.
Today, we are relatively free on an individual level, and often even lucid, but we are subject to a social organization, beliefs and blindly inherited or imposed norms, which we are currently collectively incapable of reforming.
This powerlessness is not inevitable, however, and has not been constant throughout history.
Increasing our collective autonomy is both possible and necessary. We intend to contribute to this growth by promoting the integration of the scientific truth regime and the scientific community itself into our media spaces – an integration we see as an indispensable condition for this growth.
What do you call a “truth regime”?
We call a “truth regime” a certain collectively shared way of establishing what is true.
For example, a religious truth regime consists in establishing truth through contact with the divine or in relation to the divine – for example, through revelation, in sacred texts, in signs, in precepts, or even in a pious way of experiencing doubt.
As individuals, and a fortiori as groups, we adopt several truth regimes at once, which interact with each other.
The regime of scientific truth that Science Publique aims to promote can be broken down into multiple norms for the constitution of knowledge, corresponding to various scientific disciplines.
However, it is possible to characterize it in its unity, in that it implies a conception of truth as always relative to one or other mode of knowledge constitution, and valid because relative, because fitting into a certain framework, and not existing in general or from all eternity.
An all-too-common confusion consists in projecting onto scientific knowledge the same expectations that apply to technical knowledge, which is expected to be certain and operational.
By wrongly demanding that scientific knowledge be immediately translatable into certainties and predictive capacities, not only do we make science a servant of technology, denying it its standards and autonomy, but we also deprive it of its branches which, either by the nature of their objects, or by their state of advancement, are not in a position to produce knowledge that can be translated into certainties or predictions, starting with the social sciences.
In so doing, we deprive ourselves of resources that would enable us to better understand ourselves and others, as well as our societies and their challenges. It is to remedy this situation that we believe Science Publique’s action is indispensable, starting with the establishment of fields.
What do you call “critique” ?
We call “critique” an analytical approach that has the following characteristics:
– It deals with a social or cultural object (a discourse, a practice, a piece of knowledge, a norm, an institution, a thing, etc.);
– It aims to elucidate what this object requires to exist, and what its existence implies (in terms of beliefs, representations, modes of organization, knowledge, practices, etc.);
What’s more, a well-executed critique must be based on a reflexive practice, aimed at elucidating the author’s presuppositions and characterizing his or her point of view, so as to distance oneself from unquestioned evidence that could lead to a partial or erroneous view of the object.
And it is precisely the activity of criticism itself that enables us to engage in such a process, since just as we need to distance ourselves from an object in order to see it distinctly, we need to know and understand other perspectives in order to know and understand the one that is ours a priori, and which is thus the least apparent to us.
This activity therefore plays a crucial role in any democratic system.
Firstly, because it is the practice par excellence that ensures that dialogue and debate are not reduced to a sterile confrontation between two points of view that are solely concerned with asserting themselves to the detriment of the other, in that it enables us to characterize thedifferent points of view at stake, the presuppositions on which they are based and their implications. While it is often difficult to agree on the relevance of one point of view or another, it is much easier to agree on the nature and implications of a particular point of view. It’s only on the basis of such elucidation that the opposing positions can become legible, and that genuine dialogue is possible.
Secondly, we need this practice, more generally, to understand ourselves and the reality we produce, through our actions, our institutions, our reflexes, everything that seems obvious and yet is not, so that we can make informed decisions, without remaining prisoners of our dogmatisms and habits.
In short, we need it to increase our autonomy, both individually and collectively.
What do you call “science” ?
We call “science” a specific way of producing knowledge that has developed progressively over the last three millennia and has the following characteristics:
– It aims to produce definite knowledge (and is therefore not content with vague or allusive knowledge);
– It aims to produce systematic knowledge (and therefore does not accept contradictory knowledge);
– It aims to produce knowledge with the widest possible scope (without denying a priori the relevance of local knowledge, it strives either to extend it, or to integrate it with knowledge of a more general scope);
– It is accompanied by reflection on itself and on the different ways in which it can be used to provide proof;
– It always leaves open the possibility of questioning and reforming its acquired knowledge, as well as its own interpretative frameworks.
We must also emphasize that science and its system of truth do not belong exclusively to the restricted community of scientists. They have infused our culture, our language, our representations and our modes of organization, in such a way that their marginalization affects not just individual researchers, but our societies as a whole.
What scientific disciplines can contributors claim to belong to within the contribution interface?
As a precautionary measure, and to ensure that fields has a minimum of robustness, we have chosen to restrict the scientific disciplines admitted to its membership, at least in the early days of its existence. To this end, we have adopted two criteria:
– The first is that these disciplines belong to the so-called “fundamental” sciences, i.e. those which produce relevant knowledge that is not intended to be immediately put at the service of particular ends, as is the case, on the contrary, with the so-called “applied” sciences, which serve practical objectives.
Indeed, it seems to us that a qualification in one or other field of applied science, such as engineering or medicine, does not so much sanction an ability to produce knowledge of a scientific nature, as an ability to produce and master knowledge of a technical nature that is compatible with scientific knowledge, which in turn comes more under the disciplines of the basic sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology.
This is not to deny a priori the ability of engineers or doctors to understand science or to master its truth system, but we are saying that we cannot take responsibility for prejudging it.
– The second criterion is the homogeneity of results. This criterion leads us, in particular, to exclude economic science, at least initially, because of the sometimes considerable differences that can be found within it, both in the conceptions of its theorists and in their recommendations.
Nonetheless, our ultimate aim is to give the community of contributors as much freedom as possible in admitting members. The aim of these restrictions is to preserve the coherence and relative simplicity of the first version of fields, so that we can better observe any shortcomings and more easily make the necessary adjustments.
Are the analyses carried out scientific in nature? How reliable are they?
It would be presumptuous of us to claim that our analyses are scientific in nature, for two reasons. The first is that they cannot be developed with the same rigor as that which characterizes the production of scientific knowledge, at the risk of overburdening the contribution process.
The second reason is that these analyses are carried out on an individual basis, upstream of the peer review processes that sanction the validity of scientific results.
However, they are nonetheless informed by the scientific knowledge of the contributors who carry them out, and thanks to their multiplication, to the characterization of the points of view expressed, as well as to the collective evaluation of each contributor’s contributions, we want to believe that the analytical work carried out as a whole tends towards a certain scientificity, and
that it is legitimate to give its conclusions a certain credit.
So, whatever the value of the analyses presented, we strongly encourage our users not to assume that they are absolutely reliable, but rather to use them as food for thought. Our aim is not to serve up a ready-made truth to a passive audience, but rather to increase each individual’s ability to independently build up relevant knowledge. The analyses produced within fields are intended to serve this purpose, as are the other resources made available by Science Publique free of charge.
Doesn’t your project place too much trust in scientific thinking? Aren’t you leaning towards a certain scientism?
Scientism is a way of thinking about knowledge that sees the sciences, and indeed the experimental sciences alone, as the only valid ways of constituting knowledge, the only ones that provide access to “true” knowledge, to the exclusion of all others.
Given the nature of Science Publique’s project, it is legitimate to wonder about the relationship it might have with such a dogmatic conception of science, as a means of producing knowledge that is certain and universally superior to all others.
This is not, however, our conception of science – and we are not original in this respect, since it is commonplace to denounce scientism as being based on a false idea of what science and the knowledge associated with it are.
Indeed, as the men and women who produce it experience on a daily basis, scientific knowledge is by no means intended to be certain knowledge; on the contrary, it is a set of hypotheses, always liable to be abandoned in favor of others that are more robust and mutually consistent.
However, this demand for certainty applies to most technical knowledge, and is often passed on to the scientific knowledge on which it is based, giving rise to numerous misunderstandings. Not only do we in no way claim to disseminate certain knowledge, but there is no question of us denying the relevance of non-scientific modes of knowledge constitution, such as technical, religious, artistic, legal or even mythical.
Nor do we claim that all of humanity’s problems can be solved by science. Neither reality, nor our lives, nor any political issue can be reduced to the image that science presents.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that science has a major role to play today, in the face of the confusion that is currently sweeping our media spaces.
We attribute this confusion to a combination of two factors:
– A weakening of the influence of the scientific truth regime within our media spaces, including in its most elementary dimensions, which we associate with “reasoning” in general, but which have nothing “general” about them;
– The emergence of technological innovations, the use of which has led to the emergence of new, unregulated media zones, which have become the terrain of a struggle between different players for their control and exploitation, as well as that of their audiences.
As a result, the most powerful and seductive discourses, and the actors behind them, are becoming increasingly dominant, while new techniques for producing reality (our images of the world, our lived realities) are developing, often beyond our control.
In this respect, the role that science and its representatives can play is twofold :
– On the one hand, to collectively define a space of truth, whose boundaries are blurred and always open to debate, but within which public debate is possible, because its terms are set;
– On the other hand, to make accessible a set of resources (knowledge, know-how, analyses, etc.), the most important of which is not this or that body of knowledge, but the scientific truth regime itself, that relationship to truth which enables us to understand it in its relativity without devaluing it, which enables us to understand that an assertion is not true “in general”, nor “in the absolute”, but always according to a certain perspective.
In short, science can and must play a political role in a democratic regime: that of an authority of reference that must strive to remain independent of politics, without forgetting that it never really is. It is only by developing autonomously, according to its own standards and goals, that science can play its full role, and contribute to the autonomy of society as a whole. And this is why it is so dangerous to subject scientific research to the imperatives of profitability or the expectations of private players, as is the tendency today.
We are not in any way suggesting that our decisions, whether individual or collective, should be taken “scientifically”, but we do strongly affirm that taking science and its achievements into account in our decision-making is more necessary than ever, and that the greatest efforts must be made to bring them out of the media marginality in which they are currently held.
To this end, we have designed fields.
Does Science Publique aim to establish a form of “one-way thinking”?
It is not our intention, nor that of the contributors to fields, to make value judgements.
Our aim is not to promote or disqualify certain public discourses, but only to enable the description and analysis of mediatized discourses, in their relationship to science and, as far as possible, in their presuppositions.
It is then up to each individual to value or devalue them according to the value he or she places on science’s perspective on reality.
Of course, science enables us to judge the relevance of a proposition, in the light of the image ofthe world that it has painstakingly constructed, through successive questioning. But it also makes other, often minority, perspectives visible, against the prevailing dogmatism.
In both cases, it plays the role it should in a democracy: a role that is not directly political, but one that (if properly fulfilled) allows politics itself to exist, and prevents it from being reduced to pure confrontation, arrangements and struggles for influence.
Our proposal is not, therefore, to impose the scientific viewpoint as the only valid one, to the exclusion of all others. It’s not a question of imposing a particular viewpoint, but of fighting to ensure that scientific thought is able to exist in our media spaces, where it is today largely marginalized.
Does the “fields” system require all its contributors to adopt the same
epistemological foundation ?
When setting up a system such as fields, the problem of the epistemological criteria governing the analyses carried out arises very early on, i.e. the standards for the constitution of knowledge and the theory of knowledge, implicit or explicit, on which they are based.
What is the nature of these criteria? Can they be diverse? Are they based on a shared foundation?
How should they be defined? What unity could they possibly present?
But this problem is rapidly becoming insoluble: by virtue of which discipline should such criteria be established? according to which school of thought to the exclusion of all others? by what right should they be defined, and a fortiori imposed?
That’s why the approach we’ve chosen – and which, in our view, is the only one that makes a project like fields possible – is precisely not to such criteria, but to let the contributors, as scientists, use their own, as is normally the case within the scientific community itself.
To this end, three conditions must be strictly preserved :
– Transparency, particularly with regard to the status of contributors, their discipline(s) of reference, their areas of specialization, and the schools of thought to which they belong;
– The plasticity of the interface, and in particular of the analysis categories;
– Finally, the possibility of peer review, both of the analyses produced and of the categories themselves.
In so doing, we hope to create a space in which the production of scientific knowledge, in its diversity, in the expression of its possible contradictions, in its complementarities, will be free to express itself according to its own standards, according to its own temporalities, without having to bend to those of this or that media institution.
Its aim is not to provide ready-to-use value judgements, credited with a “scientific value” that would remove them from all contestation, but to make accessible critical characterizations of discourses, i.e. of their characteristics, apparent or inapparent, with a view to increasing their transparency and legibility. For it is only after such a characterization that, in a second phase, it
will become possible for each individual to form his or her own judgments, as freely and autonomously as possible, and as fully informed as possible.
