In an article entitled Observing and advocating for reflection on science, which appeared in the digital space Bufa subversiva, young Cuban author Kenneth Fowler (no less than “one in the middle” among my three children) makes a case in favor of sprawl in the country of knowledge of science. The direct impetus for the text is the recent presentation, on the Caribbean Channel of Cuban Television, of the Journal of the Scientific Observatory, a project that already has a news space. In Kenneth’s opinion, this promising television program from the Scientific Observatory “led to a quantum leap in efforts, as Marty said, ‘to put science in the language of everyday life.'” Marty’s phrase, taken from the inheritance laws article, published in La América Nueva York, in January 1884, preceded by a sentence long enough to reimagine the existence of non-scientific publications not to her liking. ‘technical dialect’ but ‘everyday language’ for dealing with scientific matters. The argument becomes more interesting because it distinguishes between a limited group of experts on a given subject at the expert level, and a second, larger group (we must imagine those who have “recently been instructed”), and who, in a more general sense, we can define simply as “technical” or “learned,” and a final, more comprehensive, group of those who, for their lack of instruction, Specific or essential to understanding the subject, they “don’t make much use of” what they have read. The text advises that this latter group be given a “clear and interesting” presentation accompanied by a “good wealth of evidence” and in a manner “an affectionate friend gives conversation lessons to his friends.”
Marty’s career is multiplied by the derivations that emerge from Kenneth’s text during the celebration of the broadcast of the first scientific observatory newscast. In particular, because of his focus on what he calls the “democratization of knowledge”. His idea that science is a “socially salient” process speaks of a system in which research groups (“the first level of pluralism in this system,” he says), the “scientific-technological process” and the end of all expressions are intertwined in this “social fabric”. In this trinity, closely related to the dichotomy that Martí has given us before, it is a prerequisite for giving life to Fowler’s following proposition: “The first step is to place the scientific-technological process irreversibly and effectively into general knowledge.” But, if we accept what the phrase means, there will be no choice but to put, multiply and release a series of questions where the most important one is: How do you put a “scientific-technological process” into a vox populi? Who does it, where, with what tools, and why exactly? How is this type of complementary system for research groups and for the scientific-technological process so designed, controlled, evaluated, continually improved, and corrected for deviations or errors? How do you guide and predict the derivations and influences (global, regional, local, neighborhood) imaginable from the dissemination and knowledge of a creative event or innovation?
Although the previous questions have transformed the tasks of democratizing science into a colossal act of social engineering, directed by the will of the state and in compliance with political guidelines, the apparatus that would make “science” a fact of vox populi or “everyday language” » (according to Marty) distributed among several components: political organizations (in view of their guiding and directing function); educational instances in all grades and disciplines (because they are distinct places of knowledge transfer); Mass media, digital space (due to the function of transmission and delivery) and editorial systems. Additionally, and as a challenge, the contribution comes from grassroots organizations, in particular the three organizations that have the most reach among the country’s population: the Council for Development and Reconstruction, the Supreme Council for Communications, and the Egyptian Cabinet. In addition to the size of the contribution we add, as a function of this injection of “science” and “science” into life, of civil society actors. I think this gigantic process refers to the following part of Kenneth’s text: “When we talk about democratization of knowledge, we are not saying that we can all ‘possess’ knowledge as a good, but we can all ‘participate’ in knowledge as a process. Cuba’s knowledge society can To be only democratic, meaning that it requires the participation of everyone and not just the ivory-towered geniuses who decide about others.
I ask again (myself), what can be disseminated and transmitted scientific/technical in the way that society communicates through “everyday language” (eating martí) or transformed into vox populi (as suggested by Kenneth)? Is it possible to imagine, for example, creating circles of interest (in science/technology topics) in biology units, for example, in one or more areas? How do full-scale organizations and structures in the country, such as CDR, FMC, and People’s Force welcome, support, lead and/or enhance the worlds of science/technology? Does it make sense to have knowledge meetings (also about science/technology) in which educational centers of a particular region participate in a public event for the community? Or to multiply the links between schools and labor entities in the regions so that those demands and actions aimed at solving real problems in production processes are created or multiplied? What place does education (formal or informal) occupy in our lives to stimulate the intensive development of creativity and innovative thinking? What role do such spaces play in supporting creativity/innovation such as libraries, information units (of the type involved), interest groups and discussion groups? How many new possibilities for training, learning, publishing, production and knowledge sharing initiatives about science and technology do digital spaces offer us? How to identify, relate, project, lead to the application (in concrete actions and projects) of various creative initiatives taking place at different levels of importance within the territory; In other words, from what happens in large companies to adjacent spaces and small businesses? In which scenarios are the creative works and innovation events that best express the dynamics of change and transformative spirit in each sector of a country’s social life (production, services, education, circulation of ideas, and in general, culture, among others)? In what way, in designs, do we define, enhance and assist in coordination and inclusion in spaces that ensure the intersection between the development of creativity, the will to change and the search for innovation with indicators such as age, geographical distribution, neighborhood location, living standards, etc.?
The preceding range of questions refers to those actions and/or projects that start from the rules and make predictions using the “scientific method” to which the article refers. Starting with this, the desired change requires a modification (both multi-level and extended) of routine and intellectual actions which should be reflected, at a minimum, in:
- an intensification of the significance that establishes, for thought and practice in the place in question, the contents of the concepts of “science” and “technology”; Increased knowledge of the lives of great scientists and increased collective appreciation of their achievements; And increase knowledge of the great historical monuments of science and contemporary achievements.
- Modification and / or refinement of methods, procedures and procedures that stimulate creativity and enhance science in the direction of political and administrative processes, transfer / reception of knowledge, production of culture, community life, etc.
- Conceive and disseminate (in institutions and territories) business systems that are appropriate to promote scientific thinking, creativity and innovation; This means transforming existing structures, creating all the necessary new features, along with strengthening and dynamism of those involved in the various stages of operations.
All this immensity (which is nothing else) is contained in the words of Martí, in which the enthusiasm for inventions and other scientific developments trembled in the moments of his modernity; In the proposals of Kenneth, who – in addition to writing texts on scientific topics – is himself a member of one of the research groups he mentioned; And not least in the work of those who make up this interesting (and absolutely necessary) project of the Scientific Observatory. For a country like Cuba, where the demands imposed by the type of anti-colonial initiative converge and break the shackles of dependency imposed by the socialist revolution; And where imperial aggressiveness has insisted, from almost every imaginable front, on harassing and trying to destroy the revolutionary process, it is necessary to understand that “science”, “technology”, “creativity”, “elimination of red tape”, “scientific method”, “professional guidance” “,” Early discovery of talent “,” innovation “and” development ” acquire a special and exceptional tone, meaning and meaning, deeply connected with survival.
It is words and deeds in life, resistance, national security and the future.
“Future teen idol. Hardcore twitter trailblazer. Infuriatingly humble travel evangelist.”