Not Really “Unified Science” – Democratization of Knowledge in the Vienna Circle and its Immediate Environment (Neurath, Popper, Feyerabend, Hayek)

Ulrich Arnswald (University of Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck)

The term “democratization of knowledge,” promoted by the Vienna Circle and especially by Otto Neurath, has been on everyone's lips in recent years. Neurath's achievements in this field were highly regarded, however, they do raise further questions that are also related to the activities of Neurath and the Vienna Circle. In its 1929 manifesto “The Scientific Conception of the World,” the Vienna Circle set itself the goal of striving for a “scientific worldview” that would serve not only intellectual progress but also social progress. At the same time, it sought to establish a unified, scientific way of thinking that would form the basis for a better world. An important aspect of the democratization of knowledge was the demand to communicate scientific findings in understandable language to make them accessible to a broad public. Neurath pursued this goal. For the Vienna Circle, science should form the basis for rational thinking and action. In this respect, Karl Raimund Popper, who was only marginally involved with the Circle, agrees with the Vienna Circle. Popper did not explicitly use the term democratization of knowledge, but his work, especially his ideas on the open society and critical rationalism, form a philosophical basis for it. He advocated the free exchange of ideas, the constant review and criticism of theories, and tolerance toward other opinions, all of which are essential aspects of the democratization of knowledge. For Popper, knowledge was never complete, but always a matter of trial and error and the possibility of making mistakes and learning. This promotes an open and collaborative approach to knowledge, as it is not about rigid dogmas, but about continuous improvement through criticism. Paul Feyerabend advocated for the democratization of knowledge by promoting epistemological and political pluralism that challenges the monopoly of Western science, promoting the equal recognition of different knowledge systems such as indigenous traditions, and insisting that scientific understanding and decision-making be subject to democratic control and no longer remain the exclusive domain of experts. He believed that this openness, which corresponded to his principle of “anything goes,” would lead to better global understanding and a more just society. Finally, Friedrich August von Hayek, who took up the ideas of the Vienna Circle, does not advocate the democratization of knowledge in the sense of direct participation by all in decision-making, but rather the “democratic use” of decentralized knowledge through the freedom of individuals to use their local knowledge. His central argument is that the knowledge crucial to decisions is not the knowledge of a central authority, but rather the scattered, local, and often implicit knowledge of countless individuals. Four thinkers from the Vienna Circle or its immediate environment who took fundamentally different approaches to the “democratization of knowledge,” although the Vienna Circle had the goal of a “unified science”. The lecture aims to trace the approaches of the four thinkers and place them in context with one another.