A Dangerous Imbalance

Innovation dynamics in the natural sciences and stagnation in the social sciences

The tremendous technological innovations of our time (AI, digitization, miniaturization, biochemistry, space technology, and much more) are grounded in the ongoing development of scientific theories. All these innovations could emerge only through the competition between generalizable systems of ideas (theories) and research focused on gaining knowledge—an insight associated with philosopher of science Karl Popper, who wrote in his “Logic of Scientific Discovery”: “The empirical sciences are systems of theories. One could call the logic of knowledge the theory of theories” (Popper 1969: 31).

Accordingly, science must proceed logically and empirically, unlike, for example, the late medieval scholasticism of Meister Eckhart, as Harrington (2018) assumed. However, the more universally valid and precisely formulated a statement is, the easier it is to test empirically—and the higher its empirical content (Popper 1969: 86). Science therefore seeks to develop theories with as much content as possible (and thus as easy to test as possible).

Furthermore, open theory-building stands for effective academic freedom.

In the social sciences, particularly political science, theory-building plays only a minor role today. Instead, the prevailing view is that research should serve practice directly—in keeping with Karl Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach: The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it (Marx 1845),

As a result, what is distinctive about scholarship cannot develop and flourish: free, knowledge-oriented theory-building. Instead, those who control research budgets hold sway: political parties, networks, and bureaucracy; there is no dynamic of knowledge creation in the social sciences..

This gives rise to a dangerous imbalance: while the natural and engineering sciences have been advancing at a breakneck pace for centuries, constantly transforming the world more rapidly and profoundly, the political and social sciences are stagnating, incapable of and unwilling to embrace a dynamic pursuit of knowledge. As a result, technological conditions are changing ever more rapidly and extensively, while sociopolitical self-understanding stagnates, even regresses, and ultimately destroys itself.

In this situation, the development of social science theory is of paramount—even existential—importance. The Theory of Civility was developed with this in mind, and it is in this spirit that Civility gUG addresses the academic community, providers of civic education, and policymakers.