[ad_1]
Although the presidential election is technically over, the specter of the vice presidential debate on January 21st is still fresh in our minds. Apart from gestures, gimmicks, and other ethical issues, this debate provided us with an important opportunity to think about the relationship between science and politics.
Competing terms in political debates have important implications for the development of public understanding. Why?
The general public was exposed to a variety of new terms that are generally only used in the scientific world. Since then, terms such as “giant seawall,” “quintuple helix,” “single map policy,” and “greenflation” have become commonplace in public life.
However, public opinion was not always positive.Many people had negative reactions due to the use of candidates “Bahasa Langit”This phenomenon only shows that the gap between science and politics remains a major challenge for Indonesia to address.
The main points relate to the communication bridge between science and politics. Until now, imagination has positioned individuals or “boundaries” who stand at the intersection of science and politics.
For example, reflections on the interaction of science and politics do not always work among academics and professionals who work across this boundary. Current phenomena indicate a biased tendency for scholars and experts to prioritize either scientific or political calculations.
every Thursday
Therefore, other solutions need to be considered, such as encouraging the role of boundary organizations that work across scientific and political boundaries to educate the public about scientific terminology.
[ad_2]
Source link
