Science and Power

 
The trajectory of scientific progress over the past century is staggering.  Barring catastrophic civilizational breakdown, it’s only going to increase, and with AI likely exponentially.  But this means the gap between specialized knowledge and the layperson increases concordantly. 
 
This epistemological complexity presents a growing challenge for humanity.  We're already seeing the exploitation of this gap within capitalist exploitative economy in which distrust is leveraged as a balm for the insecurity and indignities of modern life.
 
To the extent that power is wielded over a populace feeling increasingly marginalized from democratic inclusion in cultural and economic trajectories, scientific ignorance will continue to be an exploitable resource.
 
This power imbalance must be corrected for, but as we see with the rise of RW authoritarian and fascist ideology, epistemological uncertainties can be a powerful weapon of disinformation.
 
Democratic and progressive solutions are hidden by a misdirection towards fear and isolation that serves to concretize systems of subjugation by traditional hierarchies that promise security and power for a few at the expense of the many.
 
So, the problem is twofold, power must be reclaimed for pluralism and equity, while simultaneously scientific understanding must be democratized.  Yet the ability for the layperson to understand the science will be increasingly limited. 
 
Thus, a core basis for democratic pluralism will hinge on legitimate trust of expertise, which is only possible in economic systems in which power is distributed fairly.  As we push for such economies, science communication will be crucial in articulating an honest accounting to the public.
 
This will require the establishment of science communication starting in public education and ongoing through government and media outreach.  In coming decades, our lives will increasingly be lived in a world in which technologies proliferate in our daily experience. 
 
For this power to remain pluralistic and democratic, we must be able to bridge the epistemological gap between lay and expert knowledge.  As the public will be asked to trust ever more in a science that will advance far beyond its cognitive grasp, our institutions must be able rise to that task.

---