As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Philosopher-Kings: How much should Science influence Politics?
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The scientific community already has pretty broad influence over public policy and politics. For example, several government agencies, such as the EPA, the Department of Education, and the Department of the Interior, work with the scientific community when consulting or enacting their policies. While these groups are not technically answerable to the scientific community, they still listen (to various extents under different presidents).
I think most of us on this forum think science is cool.
I also think that the scientific community is remarkably monolithic about many policies (in sort of the same way that some other broad interest groups, like "Christian evangelicals" are). For example, most scientists are relatively liberal on social policies, environmental issues, and even big moral issues like stem cell research, psychology, and some aspects of foreign policy.
My question is, to what extent should the scientific community influence politics and public policy? Should they be treated at arms length like other interest groups? Or should they be given even more power than they have already? Should, for instance, should the community itself be made into an autonomous "Department" in the executive branch with broad powers to enforce regulation ensuring science is not misrepresented or misused in advertisements?
I personally would be in favor of this: many advertisements are basically predatory on uneducated people. I'd also like to see scientists or representatives of the scientific community in the judiciary branch, working concurrently with legal establishment and traditional judges, and should exert oversight on some level over judges. I realize I'm basically advocating Plato's philosopher-kings, but on the other hand unscientific people are basically ruining our society and our world.
I think most of us on this forum think science is cool.
I also think that the scientific community is remarkably monolithic about many policies (in sort of the same way that some other broad interest groups, like "Christian evangelicals" are). For example, most scientists are relatively liberal on social policies, environmental issues, and even big moral issues like stem cell research, psychology, and some aspects of foreign policy.
My question is, to what extent should the scientific community influence politics and public policy? Should they be treated at arms length like other interest groups? Or should they be given even more power than they have already? Should, for instance, should the community itself be made into an autonomous "Department" in the executive branch with broad powers to enforce regulation ensuring science is not misrepresented or misused in advertisements?
I personally would be in favor of this: many advertisements are basically predatory on uneducated people. I'd also like to see scientists or representatives of the scientific community in the judiciary branch, working concurrently with legal establishment and traditional judges, and should exert oversight on some level over judges. I realize I'm basically advocating Plato's philosopher-kings, but on the other hand unscientific people are basically ruining our society and our world.
Qingu on
0
Posts
Not total power, of course. Scientific opinion changes. For instance, what if global warming were false? (It isn't, but entertain the idea.)
If it were false, and there were a scientific consensus that we need to do X, Y and Z to counteract it, we might do more harm than good to the environment, and run us into more debt.
So yes. Perhaps some sort of federal science agency specifically charged with knowing everything about the physical world. Then they'd report their findings back. It'd be perfect.
Actually, kidding aside yes. Legitimate, certified scientists working as governmental corespondents at all levels would be ideal. Just like actual scholars working for the Department of Education (instead of just politicians with no education about educating whatsoever).
It's not like the president doesn't have science advisers, it's just that the office get politicized. I don't see how a government run watchdog group, or whatever, would not end up as just more thugs enforcing someone's agenda. I don't really care that I like the agenda now.
True. But unrestrained, the forces currently at work in politics have absolutely wreaked havoc on the environment, most likely permanently. I can't really see the scientific community making the problem significantly worse than it would be without them. (again, I could be wrong ... as you can tell, I'm not really sure about all this myself!)
Like the clergy! Science: it's the church that works.
Also: politicians being bribed by corporations who are literally paying them to trick us into giving them money for no reason (see farm subsidies, cigarette companies, weapons manufacturors, etc.) The current system is not doing enough to combat these things, which I think are social evils of the highest degree.
Qingu, we'd be friends irl. I can already tell.
Also, it's noteworthy to note that my arguments counter to the increased role of scientists in policy making was more a result of my increased skittishness on the forums. Hair splitting is... common, so qualifying and specifying everything becomes typical.
As per the topic, I currently cannot think of a subject in which advanced scientific consensus would not be ideal. In no case can I think of a situation where it'd be wise to say, "No, that's ok. I don't want your information regarding the actual workings of the world and our minds. I'll rely on my figurin' ability."
But see, the point is that sometimes the political decisions outright contradict what we know to be scientifically true, and that in those cases, more involvement from the scientific community would hopefully result in 'better' decisions being made.
Well, I think that's only part of it. Ideally, everyone would be rational, and that would be that.
But I'm also talking about what powers a particular bloc of power should have. Again, Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, anymore than Religion or Law do—it is a community of people, one that already acts as a lobbying group to a large extent. I'm just wondering what sort of power this community of people should have—or more practically, how much members of this community should try to personally exert their influence in politics and policy (as opposed to being "obejctive" in some Ivory-Tower/Asimov's Foundation fashion).
This.
I wouldn't want a specialist in protein folding making decisions on foreign policy.
Well, yeah! Thank god no one here is suggesting that.
So yeah, it should have a bigger impact.
Agreed.
I'm not sure what an official Body of Science type of organization would do, though. It's easy to find out if there's a consensus or lack thereof concerning certain issues. If science isn't having as big of an impact as it should be, the culprits are scientific illiteracy and political considerations, not a lack of organization.
I also wonder what other people in the electorate (like us) could do to give the scientific community more power.
Mostly I'm just curious if they should be given more power than any other interest group, simply on the account that they are "scientific."
No, you're not wrong. Congressmen Googling the topics the day of or before the vote, to find the information? Or some overseeing congressional committee specifically in charge of read, digesting and translating the most up-to-date knowledge prior to every hearing?
However it'd work, an active, conscious scientific presence or role in government I do think should exist. Whether it's an actual, funded FSRA (Federal Scientific Research Agency), or just a small branch dedicated to compiling public knowledge... Something tangible and scientifically related should exist. Without it, it comes down to every individual senator, representative, secretary etc. to do their research, and... That's probably not going to happen.
Then again, I could be completely wrong about that.
[EDIT]: Objectivity would be their biggest concern. So whichever method would result in the most unbiased information, that would be the most ideal road. Government funded research might lead to "priorities" in research, whereas public knowledge may be generally bas a result of privately funded research.
Who knows...
Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough on my position. I don't think science should be treated any different than any other expert individual, body, or panel, and they should sure as hell not have an increased role in state craft. I definitely see their usefulness as lobbyists and resident experts; I wouldn't have an issue if scientists were treated as first among such lobbyists and experts, but their role is at very best only one of advising.
The scientific method doesn't translate well at all to politics or statecraft, and I am very, very wary of saying we should just inject science and scientific ways of doing things into a field that is fundamentally unsuited for what is being proposed. What benefits would making politics more "sciency" actually bring? I'm not particularly clear on this.
"Scientists say 'Blacks are people too'" might have helped around 150 years ago, for instance.
Homosexuality being genetically determined could/should have social impacts for how they're treated as people (probably not, bigots will be bigots), or allowed to marry.
Global Warming admitted as a serious scientific issue should determine what policies go into effecting some change. Alternatively, bad science should be kicked out.
Phrenology should not play a role in determining pharmaceutical funding and research for government medicare and such.
Flat Earth advocates should not be allowed to do... anything.
And creationism should be fucking. banned.
Nuclear energy, there's another.
It starts to fall apart when you start saying these lobbyists/experts should determine policy.
[EDIT]: Unless we're facing drastic negative consequences for following the science. In which case I offer three solutions.
A: That wouldn't happen, because the very idea of scientific consensus would account for those problems.
B: It's politics, it's never easy, and we do what we must. If you want clear cut, study math.
C: Suck it up and grow up. The real world matters more than the sensibilities or concerns of politicians. Following real, legitimate, intelligent models of how the world works will be better than pandering to current social problems in the long run.
And yet government still awards money and determines health, as do insurance companies, based on an individuals BMI.
You are making two assumptions that I don't believe you are entitled to. First, scientific consensus is applicable to statecraft in something other than an advisory role, and second, that personal interests and private organizations determine public policy completely.
While all political systems have problems, I think you are being a little too jaded (especially understandable if you are an American) with regards to the influence of private individuals and interests on the wider policy realities of the state. If we are talking about an ideal situation, the leaders in charge of determining policy are concerned with the interests of the state as a whole, and would not be primarily concerned with only one particular view or interest as put forward by a limited set of people. This isn't an ideal world, of course, but most governments they aren't completely broken don't act in a completely absurd manner all the time - if a government wished to actually ensure the continued existence of both itself and the state it is associated with, it would at least have to make decisions with an eye to the holistic concerns of the state at least once and a while. With this in mind, I don't think your second assumption is reasonable.
Your first assumption also has some serious issues. In fact, I can't even think of any role that the scientific method, scientists, and scientific consensus would fill in the public sphere that isn't advisory. Perhaps doctors and those of the medical profession? Most doctors aren't scientists though, and the researchers that are are fairly indistinguishable from other scientists in different fields.
Sorry, but I'm kind of slow tonight, so if there actually does exist a role that scientists/scientific consensus/scientific method fill that isn't advisory in capacity, please spell it out for me.
Science is not equipped to deal with questions of philosophy, politics, or policy. Seriously. Science is good for making predictions and observations, but it gives you nothing in terms of judgment. If it does, it is only in terms of past experience - which just isn't good enough in statecraft.
I didn't realize cop outs were answers.
Errr...what?
"Following real, legitimate, intelligent models of how the world works will be better than pandering to current social problems in the long run."
That's what I thought you said. I'm sorry, but that is the most completely fucking inane and batshit thing I've heard in awhile.
Please tell me - exactly - how politics first of all a) doesn't concern itself with the real world (I'll be generous and not mention realpolitik), b) is somehow "less legitimate" than science, c) what the fuck you meant by "pandering to current social problems."
Thanks.
The problem with a lot of the recent environmental stuff, for instance, is that the scientific side and the economic side have been plugging their ears at each other, and the politics have ended up just siding with the psychological anyways.
Eh, not really. The science says "you gotta cut emissions".
The general population says "but nuclear power? I don't know if I like the sound of that. Better do nothing instead."
The science says "we need to clean the air."
The economics says "we need to make money."
The psychology says "we just want to feel good, fuck those other two guys."
The result is ethanol. :P
Sure, they should try to influence policy in the areas of their expertise. And they have all the power they need in free speech, so no, I don't think they deserve any special considerations. If people don't listen because they don't care/understand what the fuck anyone's talking about, then that's a problem more suitable to addressed in our education system, and doesn't have an easy political solution.
No, that's corporations. Economics say we need sustainable growth.
I'm pretty sure economics says we need to make money.
It's just not going to agree on who and how much or at what costs.
Right now, there's a hell of a lot of things going on in California which are based on making people vote Arny rather than helping the economy, the environment, or, hell, even the corporations (well, outside of Caterpillar and precious metals and the like)
We should probably just have a team of science journalists, then.
Some of those guys are fucking smart. Not even kidding. And smart about a ton of science shit.
So economist argue about what level of growth is sustainable?
Thing is that the opinion of the corporations has a lot to do with sustainable growth. You can't just ignore them simply because they tend to be greedy assholes. They're greedy assholes who people make their living through. While, usually, they bluster and bitch and bluff, sometimes they really do up and leave and possibly damage the local economy.
Influencing policy, suggesting things, yes.
Plato said himself, the master of statescraft is the statesman,[not the scientist.]
Like taking a good idea on paper and it coming out awful in material form.
I would definitely never recommend scientists for the position. I've just never been made aware of any real effort to create truly informed political figures who can look at science to see how things work, and then look at economics to see how we can afford to make use of the science.
JP Morgan wasn't a politician but who's to say another Charles Murray won't pop up every so often when a statesman wants to grease the facts? It takes months to thoroughly discredit faux scientists - gotta keep science's credibility pristine or else you'll steadily lose public confidence.
Heh, I was thinking more of the scientist Big Tobacco hired in the movie 'Thank You for Smoking'. You know, the one that could go so far as disproving gravity if it was required to win a court case.
I never meant to suggest that scientists themselves be in charge of making the policy. I'm well aware that more than just observational and experimental models are necessary to create realistic, applicable policies.
However, actual, real observations and understandings of not just ecology, but biology, and psychology. More specifically neuropsychology, and how it relates to criminal punishments and pharmaceutical and medical aid.
The scientist in "Thank You For Smoking" is the exact reason that relying on public knowledge and information might be a bad idea. And I mean might in that it was a movie, and probably the general, scientific consensus on any given issue would be correct. Or at least most correct.
How about we just elect politicians that aren't outright hostile to scientific thought.