Question
Why do scientists tend to have liberal (progressive) views?
Answer
I think the answer is quite a subtle one, and is identical to the reason why great novelists, artists, comedians and poets also tend to lean progressive liberal.
Progressive liberalism is associated with many things (egalitarianism, a desire for social justice, moral relativism, a constant sense of "save the world" crisis thinking), most of which don't affect science on a day to day basis.
But one association DOES affect things on a day to day basis: diversity of opinion. People with any talent at all for creative discovery of any sort (scientific or artistic), very quickly notice that diverse perspectives tend to lead to a richer and more stimulating/original stream of ideas, while very similar perspectives tend to create impoverished echo chambers very fast. Once the mathematics of evolution was understood, they even had a convenient metaphor for the effect (ecosystem diversity, the idea of mutations and crossovers, and local/global optima).
This spirit goes way back to when science was the preserve of the infamous dead-white-male that postmodernists love to hate: Gauss kept up a correspondence with Sophie Germain without realizing she was a woman.
Gauss was something of an arrogant elitist jerk, but one whose elitism was purely based on the quality of ideas. He wrote something that I think captures the soul of the scientific spirit when he discovered that his pen-pal was a woman:
THIS is the fundamental reason scientists tend to progressive. They are stunned by their first experience of the correlation between diversity and richness of an intellectual climate. The Hardy/Ramanujan encounter is another famous example.
Beyond 1:1 encounters, this is also why academia is the classic "herding cats" environment. It is designed to attract intellectual diversity more than other organizational contexts.
From diversity of opinion/views to diversity in the political, multicultural sense is a short leap. From there, a leap to moral relativism is another short leap. And from there, to a general view favoring social justice, is but a step. This interest in social justice is a subtle effect. Creative types like it because it maximizes diversity of opinion/ideas, not because it is "fair. " Not many progressive liberals of the scientific/creative type actually care much about "fairness" since their thinking is too deeply informed by Darwinian creative-destruction ideas; their concern for social justice is derivative.
And as the budding scientist or artist learns to manage this complexity and become agile and sure-footed in adopting different viewpoints, he/she also naturally develops a greater complexity of thought, and a strong distrust of facile dichotomies (the chief correlate of scientific creativity, as discovered by Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi).
In a way, this is just addictive chasing after intellectual stimulation and variety, to the point that people with overly-developed scientific sensibilities can lose their moral compass altogether, and end up condoning murder simply because there are fascinating things to be learned from the perspective of murderers.
Note a very subtle difference between this kind of highly individualist, anti-group notion of diversity and the kind of groupthinking collectivism characteristic of the activist crowd, which is born purely out of a concern for oppression and a sense that life ought to be "fair." Despite being progressive liberals, most people with a scientific/creative temperament usually detest the groupthinking do-gooder crowd, with whom they are nominally clubbed together by conservatives. For some, this aversion is so extreme, it is enough to tip them over into libertarianism. For others (like me), this aversion leads to a split identity: "business conservative/social liberal."
Collectivist progressive liberalism is meaningless superficial diversity. At a typical drum circle, you can find a group of these people ranging in color from sub-Saharan pure black to Scandinavian extreme white, and every shade in between, and they might all be intellectual clones. I've been yelled at by such multi-colored clone collectives many times, because I make fun of them.
Though there have been very famous scientists who have NOT been progressive liberals, if you dig much deeper, you'll find that deep down they love the dissent and diversity of opinion that drives the scientific imagination, and will often set aside their own worst prejudices in pursuit of good ideas.
Progressive liberalism is associated with many things (egalitarianism, a desire for social justice, moral relativism, a constant sense of "save the world" crisis thinking), most of which don't affect science on a day to day basis.
But one association DOES affect things on a day to day basis: diversity of opinion. People with any talent at all for creative discovery of any sort (scientific or artistic), very quickly notice that diverse perspectives tend to lead to a richer and more stimulating/original stream of ideas, while very similar perspectives tend to create impoverished echo chambers very fast. Once the mathematics of evolution was understood, they even had a convenient metaphor for the effect (ecosystem diversity, the idea of mutations and crossovers, and local/global optima).
This spirit goes way back to when science was the preserve of the infamous dead-white-male that postmodernists love to hate: Gauss kept up a correspondence with Sophie Germain without realizing she was a woman.
Gauss was something of an arrogant elitist jerk, but one whose elitism was purely based on the quality of ideas. He wrote something that I think captures the soul of the scientific spirit when he discovered that his pen-pal was a woman:
How can I describe my astonishment and admiration on seeing my esteemed
correspondent M leBlanc metamorphosed into this celebrated person. . .
when a woman, because of her sex, our customs and prejudices, encounters
infinitely more obstacles than men in familiarising herself with
[number theory's] knotty problems, yet overcomes these fetters and
penetrates that which is most hidden, she doubtless has the most noble
courage, extraordinary talent, and superior genius.
THIS is the fundamental reason scientists tend to progressive. They are stunned by their first experience of the correlation between diversity and richness of an intellectual climate. The Hardy/Ramanujan encounter is another famous example.
Beyond 1:1 encounters, this is also why academia is the classic "herding cats" environment. It is designed to attract intellectual diversity more than other organizational contexts.
From diversity of opinion/views to diversity in the political, multicultural sense is a short leap. From there, a leap to moral relativism is another short leap. And from there, to a general view favoring social justice, is but a step. This interest in social justice is a subtle effect. Creative types like it because it maximizes diversity of opinion/ideas, not because it is "fair. " Not many progressive liberals of the scientific/creative type actually care much about "fairness" since their thinking is too deeply informed by Darwinian creative-destruction ideas; their concern for social justice is derivative.
And as the budding scientist or artist learns to manage this complexity and become agile and sure-footed in adopting different viewpoints, he/she also naturally develops a greater complexity of thought, and a strong distrust of facile dichotomies (the chief correlate of scientific creativity, as discovered by Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi).
In a way, this is just addictive chasing after intellectual stimulation and variety, to the point that people with overly-developed scientific sensibilities can lose their moral compass altogether, and end up condoning murder simply because there are fascinating things to be learned from the perspective of murderers.
Note a very subtle difference between this kind of highly individualist, anti-group notion of diversity and the kind of groupthinking collectivism characteristic of the activist crowd, which is born purely out of a concern for oppression and a sense that life ought to be "fair." Despite being progressive liberals, most people with a scientific/creative temperament usually detest the groupthinking do-gooder crowd, with whom they are nominally clubbed together by conservatives. For some, this aversion is so extreme, it is enough to tip them over into libertarianism. For others (like me), this aversion leads to a split identity: "business conservative/social liberal."
Collectivist progressive liberalism is meaningless superficial diversity. At a typical drum circle, you can find a group of these people ranging in color from sub-Saharan pure black to Scandinavian extreme white, and every shade in between, and they might all be intellectual clones. I've been yelled at by such multi-colored clone collectives many times, because I make fun of them.
Though there have been very famous scientists who have NOT been progressive liberals, if you dig much deeper, you'll find that deep down they love the dissent and diversity of opinion that drives the scientific imagination, and will often set aside their own worst prejudices in pursuit of good ideas.