so, science should get to be in charge of politics, too?
The same ideas behind the scientific method should be in charge of the decision making process in the political process. The idea that you observe and then make decisions based on observations instead of decisions made by ignoring reality isn't exactly a radical one.
When someone is building a bridge they are welcome to ignore the reality of what gravity means for the bridge design but I don't think the outcome is going to be a very good one.
I don't really see how that follows.
" A political system that discounts facts and instead goes with lies and goofy implausibilities" looks normal to me, however odious or repellent to the conscience it is. I'm not sure it's been much improved by debunking, truth squadding or fact checking of any kind. Maybe even the reverse. Bull and counter-bull , propaganda and counter-propaganda, proliferate, crowding everything else out.
the laws of physics work for legislation, diplomacy and war? how lucky for all of us, and how fortunate indeed for doctors of physics.
start using the scientific method? are our representatives to be citizen scientists from now on, quantifying the efficiency of their own political actions and justifying their political theories before august, doctoral bodies composed exclusively of properly credentialled peers?
I can't wait. Gonna be hilarious.
hucksterism sells better than science.
lot of things do, tbh.
fear works, too
science isn't completely unhucksterish itself. Manny keeps trying to characterize me as anti-knowledge and pro-ignorance.
i don't think so. manny's got a dream about americans that will never be reached.
when really, all I object to is the arrogance of science to settle human affairs. I think there's enough of that already and that even more should be resisted.
i'll bite. such as......
The laws of physics apply in those areas when appropriate. What do you think the repurcussions would be if governments ignored the effects of nuclear weapons? I am not saying they are applicable everywhere but ignoring them where they do apply is not wise. You disagree?
This is such a ridiculous statement. What is the scientific method? You basically take observed data and incorporate it into your decision making process. The scientific method has nothing to do with doctoral bodies. You're using a completely different definition of science than I or the article authors are. You're basically taking science to mean academia which is not the idea that was discussed in the article. Let me quote from the OP again:
Acceptance of this relativistic worldview undermines democracy and leads not to tolerance but to authoritarianism. John Locke, one of Jefferson's “trinity of three greatest men,” showed why almost three centuries ago. Locke watched the arguing factions of Protestantism, each claiming to be the one true religion, and asked: How do we know something to be true? What is the basis of knowledge? In 1689 he defined what knowledge is and how it is grounded in observations of the physical world in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Any claim that fails this test is “but faith, or opinion, but not knowledge.” It was this idea—that the world is knowable and that objective, empirical knowledge is the most equitable basis for public policy—that stood as Jefferson's foundational argument for democracy.
This is the single most important paragraph in that entire article. It tells you exactly what they are talking about. At no point does anyone mention doctoral bodies, credentials, or citizen scientists but rather that we base our decision making process on "objective, empirical knowledge" (which begs the question why do you keep mentioning these things?).
And let me repeat, that doesn't mean every subject is one where we have a good handle on what is "objective, empirical knowledge". I realize completely that in areas such as sociology and economics our understanding of how the systems work is flawed and incomplete. That doesn't somehow give people carte blanche to make up a reality of their choosing in the subject areas where we do have such a handle on things.
What I can't wait for is whatever strawman you'll come up with next or where you'll shift the goal posts too now. Gonna be hilarious.
I don't expect perfection. Doesn't mean it hasn't regressed quite a bit or that we can't improve the current state of affairs.
Yeah the arrogance of what is by far the most successful way of advancing human knowledge in existence. I asked you above to show me a method that had done more for humanity than the scientific method. I didn't see any response. But by all means, if you can tell us where its being overused I'm all ears.
the drunk didn't even bother to read the article. it was not saying that the government should be run by men of science. what it said was that the government was framed under men who approached problems like Locke, Newton and Bacon approached problems. ie inductive reasoning, empiricism, and the like.
its not that physics should be hte overlord but rather that physics should not be discarded because it contradicts with ideology. where do you think the notion of separation of church and state came from?
It's about how decisions should be made and not who makes them.
If only life were so simple that our politicians could simply approach everyone of our nation's problems empirically and then call for the obvious needed solution.
If only our politicians wouldn't ignore reality in favor of fairy tales.
Its not about being able to make a good decision everywhere but about not discarding the opportunities when they actually are there.
It is very difficult to get pure data from which scientific conclusions are drawn. The problem quite often is the data is obtained through biased means thus providing scientists with faulty conclusions. To understand the value of the conclusion you have to even factor in the funding source of the study as that will skew your results as much as any test methodology.
In the end people will see what they want to see, much like politics only it happens more discreetly in the scientific arena.
Biased means like what?
Most scientific studies, and in particular at the university level, are funded by grants. These grants are designed in such a way as to ask the researcher to find a way to arrive at a particular conclusion. There are very few funded studies that ask the research to follow a path of true empirical data. The observations are already established by the structure of the grant itself. The entire process leads to a biased scientific approach. It is why we can so easily have one study that says product X is bad for you while another will say it is good for you.
I have been involved in numerous grants and headed enough research projects to know that there is tremendous pressure to support preconceived notions as established within the grant, itself. Scientific peer pressure to not rock the boat and university administration pressure to keep the money flowing also supports the bias, as well.
I asked for specific empirical examples of data that was biased or otherwise flawed. I did not ask for more ideological bull because your notion of the vast university wing conspiracy is unsubstantiated bull idea.
Also you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of how the process works. If madeup bull study X shows product Y is great its quite easy to disprove using the methodology becasue trials and experiments are required to be repeatable. That way your powers that be like the church can run their own tests and show their own empirical results.
"The ball don't lie."
Experiments and observations can be, and are, studied by others with expertise, fully capable of getting data, and doing experiments of their own.
Someone using "biased" data runs the risk of someone else finding out, and proving that you ed up or made up. If you want to keep doing the job of science, you can't do that. The risks are just a bit too great.
i.e.
"the ball don't lie".
QED
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
