It is fun how you just know that every downvote or negative comment just bolsters op’s ego because to them it shows how the masses are stupid and they are one of the few who know how things should be. Replacing “democracy” with “science” makes no god damn sense because science is not a form o government. How hard would it have been to elaborate how you imagine your “scientific” goverment to work? I guess you would atleast have basic knowledge about politics. So what we got was the question of a 6 year old. How do you expect insightful comments?
They are just trolling, they are looking for the argument for arguments sake. Look through their post and comment history. Report, down vote, and block, then move on.
This is why we need people to study humanities. STEM majors taking a few undergraduate courses and then spending the rest of their lives thinking science is a replacement for a system of government
It’s a dumb point. Basically fanfic/dogmatism processed through a child’s brain. I’d really rather spend my attention on something better
It’s amazing how small the 99% is. Narrow and shallow. I am re-astonished every time I come here. It’s like the zombie apocalypse happened and nobody noticed.
Would you like to explain how choosing an objective is fanfic/dogmatism? This is what everyone cares about. You’re not going to convince anyone to change to a different system by ignoring the thing they want.
I think a better term to use would be “fact-based policy.” I believe that even if we intended to rework politics to be more scientific, it would just lead to all the same manipulations and twisting of facts that current politics involves. Don’t like a particular scientific consensus because it interferes with your goals? Hire a bunch of “think-tanks” to publish contradictory papers. Hah, guess what, that’s where we already are.
Under representative democracy, policies are not defined by voting. Representatives are voted in, to make the decision. They supposed to make decisions based on facts (including scientific facts) and interests of the constituents. In order to do that, institutions are created, such is bureaucracy, executive branch, committees, etc., those will employ scientists as needed. But a policy can not be made just by scientists. Climatologists can not make policy about climate change, for example, because those should rely on many aspects, including economics, security, international relationships and even internal politics (different states have different needs).
No. The problem with science is that in part it relies on trial and error. That could get messy on a societal level. We should utilize observation with scientific methods to inform our decisions. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t do that currently and scientific data results can also be manipulated to fulfill an agenda.
Well in your scenario who will implement this? Furthermore, what is the goal that you’re trying to engineer with a science based government? Is it personal happiness, population numbers, the production of capital, or to indoctrinate the masses to serve the state? Are you going to justify the use of eugenics? What happens when goals conflict or individuals don’t want to participate in experiments? What if the science you’re implementing has different philosophies or different schools of thought? How do you determine what is the optimal method?
Add comment