Towards an autonomous society
Democracy is a political system that develops and preserves the autonomy of those it unites, i.e., their ability to direct their existence towards ends and according to standards that are chosen, not imposed or simply inherited.
Conversely, the integrity of a democracy depends on the autonomy of its members.
In this respect, our media institutions play a crucial role: giving everyone the resources they need to increase this autonomy, and providing everyone with the spaces for debate and discussion necessary for collective decision-making.
However, the ability of these institutions to play their role is now under threat, not least because of the monopolization of media space by players who are quick to put it at the service of their own particular interests.
It’s not just the democratic nature of our societies that’s in jeopardy, but also our ability to deal with the vital issues of our time, starting with the ecological catastrophe.
Science Publique’s mission is to combat this dynamic and increase our individual and collective autonomy, thanks to a purpose-made device: fields.
fields
A plug-in, a platform, a community
For its users, fields is a global resource that provides them with a critical cartography of their media spaces.
At a first level, it enables them to assess the reliability of the media discourses to which they are exposed in a matter of seconds, thanks to a scientific compatibility score accessible via a plug-in while browsing the Internet.
The score is based on analyses carried out by contributors from the scientific community. It is based on three criteria: compatibility of data, methods and conclusions. On its own, it allows us to go beyond fact-checking, which can only deal with “facts”, and not the interpretations that are put forward.
At a second level, it provides access to critical analyses based on the intersecting perspectives of several contributors, who summarize the presuppositions of the media discourses analyzed.
Finally, fields gives users access to contributory resources, as well as to a community.
For its contributors from the scientific community, fields is a tool that allows their viewpoints to exist publicly, without being lost in the flood of media discourse, and without having to go through media that are not, for the most part, configured to welcome their words:
– Because fields associates the analyzed discourses with the bodies (companies, media, public figures, etc.) that either produced or disseminated them. This makes it possible to identify the average characteristics associated with speeches produced by this or that instance, which considerably reduces the number of analyses required;
– Because its interface offers a standardized analysis framework, designed to enable the fastest possible analysis, while relying on categories collectively produced by the contributors.
Today, our media spaces are the scene of a conflict between two ways of establishing truth. According to the first, which is still in the majority, truth is established by reference to various explicit, possibly reformable standards, foremost among which are scientific norms. These shared standards cannot be appropriated by anyone, and cannot be altered at the whim of a few. They are our common heritage.
But according to the second approach, adopted by a growing number of media players, such standards don’t count. All that counts is the ability to make a discourse exist, to publicly impose a “narrative”, whether through direct coercion, increased technical power, or the fascination exerted on others. In other words, what is true is what the strongest has succeeded in imposing as true.
We are therefore collectively faced with a question: are we ready to live in a society where the law of the strongest extends to the establishment of truth?
Whatever our good will, however, the fact remains that our media spaces are simply not configured to set limits to such a way of acting: indeed, the latter is first and foremost a way of exploiting these very spaces and their loopholes to the full.
That is why it is vital to make the scientific view of reality, in all its diversity, accessible to the many, and to integrate it into our media spaces.
“
People like you are part of what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality… That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how the things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
George W. Bush aide to journalist Ron Suskind, summer 2002
(Ron Suskind, “Without a Doubt”, The New York Times, 10/17/2004)
