[noufalibrahim]

> Science needs an environment free of politics.

That's unrealistically idealistic. Science depends on things like funding, ability to voice unpopular opinions and to research them etc. These are all influenced (if not entirely determined) by the zeitgeist and science doesn't exist independently of that.

Two fronts. Firstly, people will be prevented from exploring avenues that don't really fit into the zeitgeist. Secondly, people won't be interested, inclined or knowledgeable about ideas outside the zeitgeist to sufficiently explore them.

[TeMPOraL]

In the western world, being able to voice unpopular opinions is treated as a given, a baseline, a default state (and it is, since it's a fundamental part of western democracies). The "politics" here have negative impact on the ability to explore avenues outside the zeitgeist.

[noufalibrahim]

I'm not sure about that anymore (atleast in practice). There's a lot of subtle speech policing that happens especially in academic circles and there's some amount of counter movements too (e.g. https://heterodoxacademy.org/)

[eesmith]

What is the "western world"? Does it include Spain, Italy, and Germany during their respective dictatorships? Does it include East Germany during Soviet control?

Or, let's consider only western democracies.

Does that include Volksverhetzung in modern Germany?

Does it include the US during the various anti-socialist and anti-communist movements? Or those prosecuted under the Sedition Act of 1918, like when Debs was jailed for speaking out against US involvement in WWI?

Nor is the US alone of the western democracies in prosecuting people for their seditious acts of speaking out against the government.

And then there are the western democracies which have (or had) laws against blasphemous libel. Was Canada not part of the western world in 1935 when Rahard was found guilty of saying things "calculated and intended to insult the feelings and the deepest religious convictions of the great majority of the persons amongst whom we live"?

The historical evidence says that your views - that the ability to 'voice unpopular opinions' - is not a fundamental part of the western world, nor even a fundamental part of western democracy.

Important? Certainly. Influential? Yes. But fundamental and a default state? No, I don't think so.