Abstract
In the contemporary world science can hardly be separated from society. Science is governed by a complex matrix of influence (Tauber, 1977) including the inner logic of science, social, economic and political pressures, aesthetic judgement and cultural values, reflecting society and societal needs. Society’s relation to science is generally much more pragmatic. In addition to requesting and using the products of science, society asks such questions as: “Why conduct research? How much science can a country afford? To what extent should science be controlled?” A contemporary society tries to answer these questions in formalised, official documents called “White Papers” Often the primary focus in these documents, usually approved by Governments and Parliaments, is on research targeted to produce direct benefit to the particular country. Thus, the complex matrix of reciprocal influence between science and society is not always fully addressed. My view in this essay is to cover as much of the matrix as possible, offering examples from Estonia, as part of the larger framework. My tendency is to take a physicist’s viewpoint rather than philosopher’s. This naturally leads me to want to make everything as simple as possible but not simpler much in the sense of A. Einstein (although we may note that modern physics is not so simple!). Of course, it is clear that this principle will not always works, especially when discussing fuzzy concepts like understanding or ideology.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Engelbrecht J. 1997 ‘Ethical links between science and community. Estonian Experience’. Science for Peace, 2: 107–110. UNESCO Venice Office.
Engelbrecht, J. 1998 ‘Everchanging science and a small country’. J.Kivi (ed.), Business in Estonia: 175–185.
Estonian Human Development Report 1997. UNDP Estonian Office, Tallinn.
Gibbons J. 1996 ‘Remarks at ICSU General Assembly’. Materials of ICSU General Assembly, Washington.
Kundera M. 1987 The Unbearable Lightness of Being. New York et al.: Harper & Row.
Lane N. 1996 ‘What Einstein said that we did not hear’. Materials of ICSU General Assembly, Washington.
Lauristin M., Vihalemm P. (eds) 1997. Return to the Western World: Cultural and Political Perspectives on the Estonian Post-Communist Transition. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Markl H. 1998 ‘Europe’s defining moment’. ESF Communications, 38: 14–15.
Martinson H. 1995 The Reform of R&D System in Estonia. Estonian Science Foundation, Tallinn.
NRC Report: Toward a New National Science Policy, 1998. http://www.house.gov/science/sciencepolicyreport.htm
Ollila J. 1998 ‘Can large integrated companies be innovative and still survive?’ The IVA Royal Technology Forum [oral presentation]. Stockholm.
Ruutsoo R. 1998 ‘Social Sciences in Soviet Estonia’. Estonian Academy of Sciences 1938–1939, 119–124 [in Estonian]. Tallinn.
Schlossmann K. 1940 ‘Opening speech at inauguration of the Estonian Academy of Sciences’. Yearbook of the Estonian Acad. Sci., 491–493 [in Estonian]. Tallinn.
Tauber A. I. (ed.) 1997 Science and the Quest for Reality. London: MacMillan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Engelbrecht, J. (2001). Science and Society—Faculties Close or Apart?. In: Vihalemm, R. (eds) Estonian Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 219. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0672-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0672-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3863-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0672-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive