Science is well known for not being based on authority; truth in science is ultimately decided by experiment (for the natural sciences) or logic (mathematics). Indeed, one of the glories of science is that prominent scientists ('authorities') can be wrong and newcomers/less distinguished scientists can be right (one of my favorite stories in this context is Josephson versus Bardeen; another one is Chandrasekhar versus Eddington).
This post is about how the endeavor of teaching and doing science in the real world nonetheless involves the frequent exercise of authority, partly because the enterprise is human, and our knowledge is limited. Perhaps all this is obvious, but perhaps also worth reminding ourselves of. I will discuss three examples based on my personal experience with the (scientific) academic process:
i) Learning
Throughout our learning experience, we are subjected to the authority of teachers and textbooks. The selection and order of topics and level of treatment for any course depends on the teacher. The perspective on the subject matter depends on the text(s), and often on the teacher as well (I am currently experiencing this vis-a-vis the quantum course I am teaching - some texts like to start with spin and the abstract state vector approach, some with classical wave physics in the position representation).
Which notation to use, which solving techniques to teach, which problems to put on an exam, how the problems should be weighted, how many points to take off for which mistake, etc., are all decisions based on authority; they cannot be decided unambiguously based on purely scientific argument.
ii) Peer review
Professional scientists produce original research in their subject and this scholarship is eventually judged by their peers. Every paper is submitted to the authority of one or more experts. Here, especially, there might be extensive disagreement not only between authors and referees, but also between the referees themselves (I know of cases where the editor revealed all identities and got to the final decision by seating everybody around a table).
Even if the decision of the referees is unanimous, there is no guarantee that it is right (my favorite example of this is Daniel Schechtman's work, which was initially rejected and ridiculed, but eventually won a Nobel). Sometimes the editor has to make a call on the acceptance, and that introduces another kind of authority.
iii) Grantsmanship
Scientific funding is also decided by peers; but often also by independent program managers. Having talked about peer review before, I will discuss the program managers. They are very capable people, but of course have their own perspectives and missions. As by their own admission they receive many more good proposals than they can fund, they are forced to exercise their authority to make decisions to award or reject.
Postscript
I do not have any good suggestions for reducing the role of authority in the functioning of science, though I did write earlier about a way to reduce the conflict of interest in the process of peer review.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to think, with the irreversible advent of AI, how all this might (will?) change. There will still likely be reliance on authority, but perhaps less on human and more on machine-based authority. Some are warning against this.
Postpostcript
The topic of authority in science reminded me of an amusing description I once came across, of classroom teaching, in some European university in the early 1900s. The class consisted of lecture notes read out by an assistant professor. The notes had been written by the (full) professor, who was also present in class, sitting to one side of the lectern, and nodding from time to time to indicate that all was going well!
Comments