I thought we were all talking about the OP and scientist philosopher kings. Apparently you each have something else in mind. My mind reading powers must be on the fritz.
I thought we were all talking about the OP and scientist philosopher kings. Apparently you each have something else in mind. My mind reading powers must be on the fritz.
You're right, there can only be two possible views on the best way for science and politics to interact and if we think of another one or question the assumptions either side are making we should make our own thread, right? I don't see anything about electing science-friendly politicians in the OP either, I think you're in the wrong thread.
The big thing here is that we need science to also be informed by economics, psychology, history, etc., and then have people who are trained to combine these perspectives.
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."
Well. Kind of both right.
The science says 'cut emissions now'.
The economists say 'that isn't possible, but we might be able to slow emissions over the next few decades if we take these drastic measures now'.
The general population says "drasic measures? I don't know if I like the sound of that."
The politicians say "abloo bloo bloo, abloo bloo, bloo"
Point is, re: the OP, it's not as simple as politicians just ignoring the science. They may simply hold other aspects to be more important. Example, Bush & Kyoto. Most people paint it as Bush ignoring and/or denying climate change science. In fact, they were actually advised: the economics of Kyoto are bollocks and will do no discernable good - by signing on to it, the US gets no benefit and loses much political capital with developing countries. Better to save that political capital for a deal which might actually have a real effect. Politics & economics, in this case, are what will make a practical difference, not science.
That is actually very sensible, and arguably is a better way to get the international agreement we need - namely, not with the current Kyoto signatories (EU and pals), who constitute a tiny percentage of world emissions and slow emission growth, but with the non-signatories (US, China, etc) who constitute a massive percentage and high growth.
Science doesn't always trump all other considerations.
Well, science doesn't really answer the "how" question re: carbon emissions since it's a question that's under consideration. Personally I have issues with the current "international agreement" approach, because it's exactly complicated enough for us to do nothing in the end.
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
Yur, that bolded bit isn't true at all. Plenty of economists specialise in the environment, trying to find practical solutions to climate change problems (just saying 'cut emissions' doesn't cut it in the real world, unfortunately). Also, economists don't say 'we need to make money', bankers do.
And if you don't like ethanol, you should petition to move the Iowan primary until after Super Tuesday.
Well, we're not arguing that scientists be the only influence, or that they alone make the policy. However, decision making, personal and governmental, should always check itself against current scientific understanding of the issue. Environment, health, criminal psychology. Anything.
It's just a good philosophy to assure that you're actions actually coincide with nature. I figure the best way to do that is to have some sort of method to ensure that bills being passed and votes being cast are passed and cast against an intelligent, legitimate scientific background.
Well, we're not arguing that scientists be the only influence, or that they alone make the policy. However, decision making, personal and governmental, should always check itself against current scientific understanding of the issue. Environment, health, criminal psychology. Anything.
It's just a good philosophy to assure that you're actions actually coincide with nature. I figure the best way to do that is to have some sort of method to ensure that bills being passed and votes being cast are passed and cast against an intelligent, legitimate scientific background.
I don't think that can viably be done. You'd need to overhaul all kinds of policy and procedure and the organization of all three branches of government. You also need a way to decide which scientists we're going to use to proof shit, because if it's presidentially appointed for example we'll just get a bunch of "creation-science" nutters and all kinds of bullshit would ensue.
You can't do anything to the government to fix this. The people have to change before the government can be changed. You need to convince the people that science isn't actually analogous to religion, for one thing, because all that claim demonstrates is utter failure to understand either of the two concepts.
It's just a good philosophy to assure that you're actions actually coincide with nature.
Inability to spell aside, what the hell does that sentence mean?
I figure the best way to do that is to have some sort of method to ensure that bills being passed and votes being cast are passed and cast against an intelligent, legitimate scientific background.
So you are suggesting that everything should be somehow judged scientifically first. What about things that aren't related to science. Religion, for example? Look, this results in either:
1. Absolutely nothing because you do not enforce specific standards for this 'method'.
2. A de facto scienceocracy because the prerequisite for any political decision is that it meets whatever standards you do enforce.
So, are you saying that we should have a scienceocracy, or simply that it would be nice if politicians paid more attention to science?
I suspect you don't have the slightest clue as to how this would work, or the actual effects of having such a system (which you don't know how to design). You also ignore that the likely consequence of politicising science is that it becomes political, and so won't even fullfill the vague role you seem to want here.
The only problem that I can see with giving scientist more political power is increasing the potential for corruption. Scientists need to be unbiased, but what if their scientific results don't match what they think it should be. There would be more pressure to skew the results for what they perceive as the good of mankind. Certainly, they should be given more power, but give too much and problems will arise.
Giving scientist more political power also has one more advantage. No more politicians advocating a scientific theory, which has political advantages, so that they can get a few votes.
It was more of a slip than a spelling error. Same slip being mixing, say, Norway and Normandy. It happens.
And what I meant was that actually deciding, say, anything, should be rationally compared to what's currently known on the issue. Tazers. Safe? Yes? No? Their continued use should take this into consideration. Medications, say electroshock therapy.
Creationism is a popular topic, but it's far from the only one.
And, if I don't know how it'd work then tell me. I really just can't see how difficult or meddlesome it'd be to judge a decision on its validity. How to judge validity? Scientific analysis.
As per religion, I'll admit to being wholly uncaring. If their beliefs fail the simplest rational tests, then what value do they have in day to day decision making?
The only problem that I can see with giving scientist more political power is increasing the potential for corruption. Scientists need to be unbiased, but what if their scientific results don't match what they think it should be. There would be more pressure to skew the results for what they perceive as the good of mankind. Certainly, they should be given more power, but give too much and problems will arise.
Giving scientist more political power also has one more advantage. No more politicians advocating a scientific theory, which has political advantages, so that they can get a few votes.
How, exactly, do you figure we go about giving scientists more political power? New branch of government like people were saying? Simply magically elect better politicians next year with no questions allowed as to how you're going to manage that? Count scientists' votes twice?
Again, arguing against it because it might be corrupt is an argument against anything the government does, because it might be corrupt. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
It's real-world practicality may be too low, and by that measure it's a bad idea, yeah.
However, I don't truly think this would be the case. What I think doesn't really mean anything but to me, however.
Again, arguing against it because it might be corrupt is an argument against anything the government does, because it might be corrupt. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
It's real-world practicality may be too low, and by that measure it's a bad idea, yeah.
However, I don't truly think this would be the case. What I think doesn't really mean anything but to me, however.
Might? No, will. That's the way it works, you do what the voters tell you to, if enough of the voters tell you to bring back slavery you start drafting up the constitutional amendment. This isn't the magical kingdom of Hyrule where the princess rules absolutely by divine right of the Wisdom of the Gods. You want to be a politician? Tell people you're going to do what they want you to, do what they want you to do, lather rinse repeat.
Maybe? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of examples of politicians going expressly against the people for one reason or another.
I think "because everything we know about the world says this idea is wrong" is as good a reason as better to deny the populace their choice. But defending the right of politicians to defy people is like defending abortions. I mean something very pragmatic and serious, but who the hell knows how it'll be twisted.
I would hope even if 90% or more wanted to institute slavery, government would defy them. I would also hope the same for creationism.
Maybe? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of examples of politicians going expressly against the people for one reason or another.
I think "because everything we know about the world says this idea is wrong" is as good a reason as better to deny the populace their choice. But defending the right of politicians to defy people is like defending abortions. I mean something very pragmatic and serious, but who the hell knows how it'll be twisted.
I would hope even if 90% or more wanted to institute slavery, government would defy them. I would also hope the same for creationism.
Then they would elect a new government that wouldn't defy them.
It was more of a slip than a spelling error. Same slip being mixing, say, Norway and Normandy. It happens.
And what I meant was that actually deciding, say, anything, should be rationally compared to what's currently known on the issue. Tazers. Safe? Yes? No? Their continued use should take this into consideration. Medications, say electroshock therapy.
Well...that's what happens at the moment? Just some (a lot with Bush) of the time, they aren't considered to be fundamental. Either you want to change this and enforce more weight to scientific opinion, or you can't mind-control your politicians. Sorry.
And, if I don't know how it'd work then tell me. I really just can't see how difficult or meddlesome it'd be to judge a decision on its validity. How to judge validity? Scientific analysis.
I'm telling you, it won't work. Like I said: scientocracy, or bust.
...and your reasoning is high-school. Validity? Science isn't the search for truth. It's the search for fact. Scientific analysis is obliged to often come up with the answer: we don't know. What then for your decision-making? Just not make any decisions at all?
As per religion, I'll admit to being wholly uncaring. If their beliefs fail the simplest rational tests, then what value do they have in day to day decision making?
Sigh. Rationality is no more of a cure-all than religion. And no shit that irrational faith fails rational tests, that's kinda the point. But clearly it does have value for day-to-day decision making, because millions of people use morality/faith whatever to make decisions, and have been doing for millenia. You turning up and saying that is irrelevant because of rational tests is about as idiotic as religionistas declaiming science because it fails a test of faith.
I'm finding it hard to get behind this "power of the people" idea right now.
I'm not. I think the people have the government they voted for. The fact that they don't like some of the consequences of that suggests to me that maybe they should consider their leave before taking shots in the future.
Eh, maybe. That's all I can really give. I never meant to overhaul government itself, with a whole new step in the legislative/voting process. More just another consideration when crafting the bills. Scientific opinion should matter. Climate change being an example. I never meant to insinuate a scientocracy.
If there was no consensus, than the process would continue as it would now. I'm not trying to recreate some sort of organization like the Church of England with ultimate power of laws and regulations, which itself is in charge of overseeing all governmental actions. Just the idea of legitimate, scientific correspondence.
And on religion, I find it entirely difficult to believe that religion has any merit just because "it's been around a long time." I'd like to think that time is over that there'd be a need for religion at all.
And power to the would be elite? I don't see that in my posts. It could be bad communication, but I wasn't trying to argue for some broad overseeing scientific council or something. Just spitting ideas to read the end of greater scientific considerations in actual decision making. Where information exists about the actual nature of the world, I think it should matter. Where the hell is the problem with that?
I think "because everything we know about the world says this idea is wrong" is as good a reason as better to deny the populace their choice.
There we go then. Everything I know about the world says your idea is wrong.
End of discussion, right?
Am to assume you always argue in such an asinine manner? Maybe it's easy to be so dismissive without contirbuting any actual ideas. :^:
Well, don't like your own asinine statement when used against you, eh. It's good enough to 'deny the populace their choice', but not good enough to deny your argument? What?
Say stupid things, and people might say you're stupid. There is a fix to that. :roll:
Eh, maybe. That's all I can really give. I never meant to overhaul government itself, with a whole new step in the legislative/voting process. More just another consideration when crafting the bills. Scientific opinion should matter. Climate change being an example. I never meant to insinuate a scientocracy.
Problem 1. This is what I've already said. You are just arguing that we should consider science when making bills. We already do. The government has science advisors, and listens to scientific debate & experts on scientific issues. Just because the current crop in the White House has a penchant for favouring other considerations over science, doesn't mean the system is broken. That's the administration people voted for, twice. If you don't like it, vote for someone else.
I'm not trying to recreate some sort of organization like the Church of England with ultimate power of laws and regulations, which itself is in charge of overseeing all governmental actions.
What. The. Fuck.
Problem 2. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. That is not now, and never has been, true. Not even close.
Just the idea of legitimate, scientific correspondence.
Correspondence? As in, scientific journals, scientific opinion, scientific debate? Problem 1 revisited - we already have this.
And on religion, I find it entirely difficult to believe that religion has any merit just because "it's been around a long time." I'd like to think that time is over that there'd be a need for religion at all.
Problem 3. Well that's nice, but which part of that gives you the right to dictate those terms to everyone else in the world? Whether you like it or not, a lot of people in the US are wary of scientific claims, particularly where religion crosses over. The way to change that is not to make government 'more scientific', but to educate & debate people, or change the representative political system.
But the major problem is that aside from a vague idea that science = good, you don't seem to have the faintest idea of what you are actually proposing.
My Chinese history is hazy - did Chariman Mao Zedong hate scientists along with the intellectuals? Were scientists beaten up in the Cultural Revolution?
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.
Wasn't the whole point of Plato's The Republic to be a warning AGAINEST philosophers becoming involved in politics (i.e. through contradictory use of establishing justice by way of injustice)? If you buy into the whole theory of the forms, then scientists are a sort of philosopher; making the scientist rule over others is like dragging him/her back into the cave.
Ok, so Plato's Forms, pretty much no one rational subscribes to this philosophy anymore but I think the point about making a scientist/philosopher a 'king' corrupts them is an almost self-evident truth. In other words, more worrying to me than the thought of the populace not benefitting from science is science being corrupted by outside interests (more than this has already occurred, nothing is totally segregated of course). And, on an individual level, scientists also becoming corrupted. It's like a doctor being corrupted by having to be both a capitalist and a doctor, one takes away from the other and its why we like our judges and doctors and others to be as worry free of all other things (like money) as possible.
The way to change that is not to make government 'more scientific', but to educate & debate people, or change the representative political system.
Great! A fine, reasonable answer. The problem I was talking about was the seeming lack of true scientific understanding or consideration in much government action. Homosexual discrimination, consent laws (regarding sex between, say 18 year olds and 16 year olds), Creationism, sodomy laws, global warming. Anywhere where a law would negatively affect anyone based on nothing more than health, or mental health reasons.
The answer was a greater consideration of legitimate information instead of corrupt moralism. Whatever form it took, I wasn't arguing for any specific method. I wasn't proposing anything specific.
When the the next senator puts pen to paper regarding video game sales and such, I'd rather his decision be based on the actual information regarding media violence's effects, rather than the consensus of the voters and their sensibilities. Drug laws, similarly.
The majority probably thinks science is cool but doesn't understand much of it or give a shit about it.
That and many people who live and breathe science don't fully understand it because they spend all their time doing standardized lab tests rather than ever even considering the implications of the discipline they've spent all that time in. And they make me cry.
--
Why the hell are people acting like Plato was sane?
Why the hell are people acting like Plato was sane?
I don't know. His political ideas seem pretty uncool to me.
1. It was a ruse formed long ago to get all the mystics to stifle their own power, willingly. It's on Wikipedia.
2. I think only two people mentioned him, the second one being me, and only to respond to the first mention.
But specifically because I'm curious, what was wrong with what specifically I mentioned? I mean specifically wrong with it, besides being slightly vague and now outdated.
The idea that the best form of government would be one, perfectly intelligent and benign ruler, second place philosopher kings, third uncorrupted democracy, fourth corrupt democracy, fifth corrupt oligarchy, and the worst a corrupt dictator.
I don't know, seemed right enough to me. Nothing immediately wrong with it that I can see.
Why the hell are people acting like Plato was sane?
I don't know. His political ideas seem pretty uncool to me.
1. It was a ruse formed long ago to get all the mystics to stifle their own power, willingly. It's on Wikipedia.
2. I think only two people mentioned him, the second one being me, and only to respond to the first mention.
But specifically because I'm curious, what was wrong with what specifically I mentioned? I mean specifically wrong with it, besides being slightly vague and now outdated.
The idea that the best form of government would be one, perfectly intelligent and benign ruler, second place philosopher kings, third uncorrupted democracy, fourth corrupt democracy, fifth corrupt oligarchy, and the worst a corrupt dictator.
I don't know, seemed right enough to me. Nothing immediately wrong with it that I can see.
The first two rely on the hope that your dumb blind luck would just put the right people in power, and the third is a system that has been consistently shown to work all over the Western world.
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.
If you think this, then you don't really know any scientists. Also you're failing to make the connection between individual workers' personal beliefs and institute-level policy as informed by research. I'm pretty sure my boss' nominal catholicism hasn't informed his position on how best to analyse potential acid release from pyritic sediments.
Posts
How are we going to do that when a majority of voters are outright hostile to scientific thought?
Because that is a false over-generalization?
"Maybe we should just elect scientific people."
"Come on now, that is just impractical."
Is it? Are you playing the "we didn't really elect him ololz" card or do we just not go with who the majority voted for anymore?
That'd be great. But isn't that also like:
"Why don't we create a website where government spending can be monitered to cut down on corruption."
"Why don't we just hire non-corrupt people."
Or rather, that's how I'm currently thinking about it.
Yeah because I said anything about creating branches. Also I said we should make Superman the president because he's super.
I thought we were all talking about the OP and scientist philosopher kings. Apparently you each have something else in mind. My mind reading powers must be on the fritz.
You're right, there can only be two possible views on the best way for science and politics to interact and if we think of another one or question the assumptions either side are making we should make our own thread, right? I don't see anything about electing science-friendly politicians in the OP either, I think you're in the wrong thread.
Well. Kind of both right.
The science says 'cut emissions now'.
The economists say 'that isn't possible, but we might be able to slow emissions over the next few decades if we take these drastic measures now'.
The general population says "drasic measures? I don't know if I like the sound of that."
The politicians say "abloo bloo bloo, abloo bloo, bloo"
Point is, re: the OP, it's not as simple as politicians just ignoring the science. They may simply hold other aspects to be more important. Example, Bush & Kyoto. Most people paint it as Bush ignoring and/or denying climate change science. In fact, they were actually advised: the economics of Kyoto are bollocks and will do no discernable good - by signing on to it, the US gets no benefit and loses much political capital with developing countries. Better to save that political capital for a deal which might actually have a real effect. Politics & economics, in this case, are what will make a practical difference, not science.
That is actually very sensible, and arguably is a better way to get the international agreement we need - namely, not with the current Kyoto signatories (EU and pals), who constitute a tiny percentage of world emissions and slow emission growth, but with the non-signatories (US, China, etc) who constitute a massive percentage and high growth.
Science doesn't always trump all other considerations.
Yur, that bolded bit isn't true at all. Plenty of economists specialise in the environment, trying to find practical solutions to climate change problems (just saying 'cut emissions' doesn't cut it in the real world, unfortunately). Also, economists don't say 'we need to make money', bankers do.
And if you don't like ethanol, you should petition to move the Iowan primary until after Super Tuesday.
It's just a good philosophy to assure that you're actions actually coincide with nature. I figure the best way to do that is to have some sort of method to ensure that bills being passed and votes being cast are passed and cast against an intelligent, legitimate scientific background.
I don't think that can viably be done. You'd need to overhaul all kinds of policy and procedure and the organization of all three branches of government. You also need a way to decide which scientists we're going to use to proof shit, because if it's presidentially appointed for example we'll just get a bunch of "creation-science" nutters and all kinds of bullshit would ensue.
You can't do anything to the government to fix this. The people have to change before the government can be changed. You need to convince the people that science isn't actually analogous to religion, for one thing, because all that claim demonstrates is utter failure to understand either of the two concepts.
Inability to spell aside, what the hell does that sentence mean?
So you are suggesting that everything should be somehow judged scientifically first. What about things that aren't related to science. Religion, for example? Look, this results in either:
1. Absolutely nothing because you do not enforce specific standards for this 'method'.
2. A de facto scienceocracy because the prerequisite for any political decision is that it meets whatever standards you do enforce.
So, are you saying that we should have a scienceocracy, or simply that it would be nice if politicians paid more attention to science?
I suspect you don't have the slightest clue as to how this would work, or the actual effects of having such a system (which you don't know how to design). You also ignore that the likely consequence of politicising science is that it becomes political, and so won't even fullfill the vague role you seem to want here.
Giving scientist more political power also has one more advantage. No more politicians advocating a scientific theory, which has political advantages, so that they can get a few votes.
And what I meant was that actually deciding, say, anything, should be rationally compared to what's currently known on the issue. Tazers. Safe? Yes? No? Their continued use should take this into consideration. Medications, say electroshock therapy.
Creationism is a popular topic, but it's far from the only one.
And, if I don't know how it'd work then tell me. I really just can't see how difficult or meddlesome it'd be to judge a decision on its validity. How to judge validity? Scientific analysis.
As per religion, I'll admit to being wholly uncaring. If their beliefs fail the simplest rational tests, then what value do they have in day to day decision making?
How, exactly, do you figure we go about giving scientists more political power? New branch of government like people were saying? Simply magically elect better politicians next year with no questions allowed as to how you're going to manage that? Count scientists' votes twice?
It's real-world practicality may be too low, and by that measure it's a bad idea, yeah.
However, I don't truly think this would be the case. What I think doesn't really mean anything but to me, however.
Might? No, will. That's the way it works, you do what the voters tell you to, if enough of the voters tell you to bring back slavery you start drafting up the constitutional amendment. This isn't the magical kingdom of Hyrule where the princess rules absolutely by divine right of the Wisdom of the Gods. You want to be a politician? Tell people you're going to do what they want you to, do what they want you to do, lather rinse repeat.
I think "because everything we know about the world says this idea is wrong" is as good a reason as better to deny the populace their choice. But defending the right of politicians to defy people is like defending abortions. I mean something very pragmatic and serious, but who the hell knows how it'll be twisted.
I would hope even if 90% or more wanted to institute slavery, government would defy them. I would also hope the same for creationism.
Then they would elect a new government that wouldn't defy them.
Well...that's what happens at the moment? Just some (a lot with Bush) of the time, they aren't considered to be fundamental. Either you want to change this and enforce more weight to scientific opinion, or you can't mind-control your politicians. Sorry.
I'm telling you, it won't work. Like I said: scientocracy, or bust.
...and your reasoning is high-school. Validity? Science isn't the search for truth. It's the search for fact. Scientific analysis is obliged to often come up with the answer: we don't know. What then for your decision-making? Just not make any decisions at all?
Sigh. Rationality is no more of a cure-all than religion. And no shit that irrational faith fails rational tests, that's kinda the point. But clearly it does have value for day-to-day decision making, because millions of people use morality/faith whatever to make decisions, and have been doing for millenia. You turning up and saying that is irrelevant because of rational tests is about as idiotic as religionistas declaiming science because it fails a test of faith.
I'm not. I think the people have the government they voted for. The fact that they don't like some of the consequences of that suggests to me that maybe they should consider their leave before taking shots in the future.
Well you're certainly demonstrating why 'power to the would-be-elite' is an extraordinarily bad idea too.
There we go then. Everything I know about the world says your idea is wrong.
End of discussion, right?
Am to assume you always argue in such an asinine manner? Maybe it's easy to be so dismissive without contirbuting any actual ideas.
If there was no consensus, than the process would continue as it would now. I'm not trying to recreate some sort of organization like the Church of England with ultimate power of laws and regulations, which itself is in charge of overseeing all governmental actions. Just the idea of legitimate, scientific correspondence.
And on religion, I find it entirely difficult to believe that religion has any merit just because "it's been around a long time." I'd like to think that time is over that there'd be a need for religion at all.
And power to the would be elite? I don't see that in my posts. It could be bad communication, but I wasn't trying to argue for some broad overseeing scientific council or something. Just spitting ideas to read the end of greater scientific considerations in actual decision making. Where information exists about the actual nature of the world, I think it should matter. Where the hell is the problem with that?
Well, don't like your own asinine statement when used against you, eh. It's good enough to 'deny the populace their choice', but not good enough to deny your argument? What?
Say stupid things, and people might say you're stupid. There is a fix to that. :roll:
But just for the sake of it:
Problem 1. This is what I've already said. You are just arguing that we should consider science when making bills. We already do. The government has science advisors, and listens to scientific debate & experts on scientific issues. Just because the current crop in the White House has a penchant for favouring other considerations over science, doesn't mean the system is broken. That's the administration people voted for, twice. If you don't like it, vote for someone else.
What. The. Fuck.
Problem 2. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. That is not now, and never has been, true. Not even close.
Correspondence? As in, scientific journals, scientific opinion, scientific debate? Problem 1 revisited - we already have this.
Problem 3. Well that's nice, but which part of that gives you the right to dictate those terms to everyone else in the world? Whether you like it or not, a lot of people in the US are wary of scientific claims, particularly where religion crosses over. The way to change that is not to make government 'more scientific', but to educate & debate people, or change the representative political system.
But the major problem is that aside from a vague idea that science = good, you don't seem to have the faintest idea of what you are actually proposing.
Wasn't the whole point of Plato's The Republic to be a warning AGAINEST philosophers becoming involved in politics (i.e. through contradictory use of establishing justice by way of injustice)? If you buy into the whole theory of the forms, then scientists are a sort of philosopher; making the scientist rule over others is like dragging him/her back into the cave.
Ok, so Plato's Forms, pretty much no one rational subscribes to this philosophy anymore but I think the point about making a scientist/philosopher a 'king' corrupts them is an almost self-evident truth. In other words, more worrying to me than the thought of the populace not benefitting from science is science being corrupted by outside interests (more than this has already occurred, nothing is totally segregated of course). And, on an individual level, scientists also becoming corrupted. It's like a doctor being corrupted by having to be both a capitalist and a doctor, one takes away from the other and its why we like our judges and doctors and others to be as worry free of all other things (like money) as possible.
The majority probably thinks science is cool but doesn't understand much of it or give a shit about it.
He also said Philosopher-kings would be certainly preferably over a democratic system. But only an uncorrupt version.
A corrupt oligarchy would be worse than any democracy.
And Not Sarastro, yes. I'm well aware we already have this. I'm wholly focused on how well it's being heeded.
Great! A fine, reasonable answer. The problem I was talking about was the seeming lack of true scientific understanding or consideration in much government action. Homosexual discrimination, consent laws (regarding sex between, say 18 year olds and 16 year olds), Creationism, sodomy laws, global warming. Anywhere where a law would negatively affect anyone based on nothing more than health, or mental health reasons.
The answer was a greater consideration of legitimate information instead of corrupt moralism. Whatever form it took, I wasn't arguing for any specific method. I wasn't proposing anything specific.
When the the next senator puts pen to paper regarding video game sales and such, I'd rather his decision be based on the actual information regarding media violence's effects, rather than the consensus of the voters and their sensibilities. Drug laws, similarly.
That and many people who live and breathe science don't fully understand it because they spend all their time doing standardized lab tests rather than ever even considering the implications of the discipline they've spent all that time in. And they make me cry.
--
Why the hell are people acting like Plato was sane?
Who knew that incense would block ESP?
I don't know. His political ideas seem pretty uncool to me.
1. It was a ruse formed long ago to get all the mystics to stifle their own power, willingly. It's on Wikipedia.
2. I think only two people mentioned him, the second one being me, and only to respond to the first mention.
But specifically because I'm curious, what was wrong with what specifically I mentioned? I mean specifically wrong with it, besides being slightly vague and now outdated.
The idea that the best form of government would be one, perfectly intelligent and benign ruler, second place philosopher kings, third uncorrupted democracy, fourth corrupt democracy, fifth corrupt oligarchy, and the worst a corrupt dictator.
I don't know, seemed right enough to me. Nothing immediately wrong with it that I can see.
The first two rely on the hope that your dumb blind luck would just put the right people in power, and the third is a system that has been consistently shown to work all over the Western world.
If you think this, then you don't really know any scientists. Also you're failing to make the connection between individual workers' personal beliefs and institute-level policy as informed by research. I'm pretty sure my boss' nominal catholicism hasn't informed his position on how best to analyse potential acid release from pyritic sediments.