The police operation in Rio de Janeiro’s Morro do Alemão, and its political consequences, have exposed an issue that humanities scholars are keen to hide: the limited practical scope of our theories.
In this particular case, it was social media that made a mockery of the speech of a university representative, who declared that a stone would be enough to nullify a Marine attack. What seemed like just another event of digital polarization turned out to be the perfect screen for the rapporteur’s choice, in the House of Representatives, of the anti-factional project: the practical knowledge of the former Rota leader responds to the theoretical flight of books.
Such events confirm our long-repeated hypothesis that a lack of self-control in the humanities is to blame for its notorious crisis of legitimacy.
The difference between theoretical knowledge, on the one hand, and valid scientific knowledge, on the other hand, shapes the debate over epistemology. Proposals such as those by Russell, Bong, Trias, or Kuhn attempt to define science, but nothing is conclusive. The truth is that applying the experimental method directly to society, with its myriad subjects and interventions, is not like observing a cell under a microscope. In this attempt, rigorous, so-called “evidence-based” data selection methods are developed.
The problem is that this social data is only part of reality. The brightest scientists are disappointed by the fact that lifelong experiments fail to shake any paradigm and will never be able to explain the entire universe, including humans. In the face of this frustration that we all suffer from, there are two paths that must be followed.
The first is for the scientist to neglect any analytical statement about the results of his research. In the humanities, this implies the assumption that the data collected will be limited to serving as a reference for other thinkers who will one day have the power to propose public policies; But refraining from putting the creature at the service of the Creator requires a superhuman difference, so this is not the path we usually follow.
It is natural for a scientist to choose to present conclusions and proposals that give practical impact to his research, but this second path requires caution. When he dares to express an opinion about statements, it is necessary for the speaker to recognize the destructive interference of his point of view. The tools of analysis are compromised by your beliefs, party affiliation, value hierarchy and desire for social change – and this will never be science. When this analysis is carried out, empirical data becomes simple arguments.
To mitigate this inevitable subjectivism, the only solution is to broaden the scope of the discussion. By subjecting the thesis to counterarguments, any weaknesses in the researcher’s point of view are exposed, and it is at this stage that universities must demonstrate their tolerance for differing opinions.
However, if the academy accepts the positions it likes as “scientific,” it unjustifiably rescues the researcher from a dialectic that he will only encounter when exposed to external debate.
In rare moments of extramural discussion, the researcher notes that his premises are not shared by various social actors who are not subject to academic authority. At this point, excluding the public due to their lack of qualifications is not an acceptable solution, because of its frequency: the distance from academia is precisely what gave rise to the new debate.
The university will always be necessary to create or implement public policies. Paradoxically, the scientist is the person most qualified to define theoretical constraints, starting from his own axioms.
Trends/Discussions
Articles published with a byline do not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. Its publication aims to stimulate debate on Brazilian and global problems and reflects different trends in contemporary thought.