Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

[Winehole23]

What debate?

over what counts as a fact in public policy, for example. take anthropogenic global warming, as Manny did earlier on . . . scientists can't get their pet policy moved, so they call us a bunch of idiots and scream that democracy is in danger..

[MannyIsGod]

btw, why is science so bad at winning the public debate if it's so good at discovering knowledge and improving life?

Historically, its not bad at winning the public debate at all. Your question starts off with a flawed premise. People use scientific principles on a daily basis and pretty much every piece of equipment people use on a daily basis is has been the work of science. Chances are good that the food you consume today will have been produced with methods devloped in a scientific way. The water you drink today will have undergone processes developed by scientists. In your daily life I'd be surprised if you could go mere minutes without somehow buying into a product of science and using it.

Furthermore, science may be losing the public debate in the United States in some areas but whether its doing so overall is not something I'd concede.

[Winehole23]

fair enough. so, how is democracy endangered?

[MannyIsGod]

over what counts as a fact in public policy, for example. take anthropogenic global warming, as Manny did earlier on . . . scientists can't get their pet policy moved, so they call us a bunch of idiots and scream that democracy is in danger..

Oh see, you're making a leap here that ins't there. There's a fundamental difference between decrying a politician ignoring the facts of the issue and advocating any specific legislation. You are once again errecting a strawman. Its not about enacting legislation but rather acknowledging what the fundamental facts are.

[Winehole23]

I did read the article and found little besides emotive prose and vaporous inference to back that up.

[MannyIsGod]

fair enough. so, how is democracy endangered?

Did you read the article in the OP?

[Winehole23]

Oh see, you're making a leap here that ins't there. There's a fundamental difference between decrying a politician ignoring the facts of the issue and advocating any specific legislation. You are once again errecting a strawman. Its not about enacting legislation but rather acknowledging what the fundamental facts are.

so, in the absence of mature scientific understanding -- which btw very few people possess -- we do have to take someone else's word for it, don't we?

[MannyIsGod]

If you don't think Democracy is endagered, then fine. I dont think the case was extensive in the article.


I'm pretty sure I acknowledged this earlier in the thread.


What I take issue with is the idea that its ideal for people to ignore facts. Or even OK for that matter. Simply saying "thats the way it is" is a huge cop out of that subject and frankly lazy as .

[Winehole23]

you think everyone should bow at your altar, but it just ain't true

[MannyIsGod]

so, in the absence of mature scientific understanding -- which btw very few people possess -- we do have to take someone else's word for it, don't we?

Absolutely not. You never just have to take a persons word for it. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to seek it out and for most things they aren't so complicated that you can't learn about them with some effort. It simply is not a valid argument that you have to take someone's word for it at any point because you don't have to.

Obviously you can choose to take someone's word for it but thats not the same as having to take someone's word for it.

[MannyIsGod]

you think everyone should bow at your altar, but it just ain't true

You keep trying to make it about arrogance when its about knowledge. When you drink that clean water that comes out of the tap who's altar are you bowing at?


How would you describe your decision making process, WH?

[Winehole23]

What I take issue with is the idea that its ideal for people to ignore facts. Or even OK for that matter.

reality principle. it ain't ideal, but it's what we got to work with. it didn't ask our permission and it won't go away because some people don't like it. I can agree with some of the problems, but disagree that more science and rationalism are the obvious solutions.

[Winehole23]

You keep trying to make it about arrogance when its about knowledge. When you drink that clean water that comes out of the tap who's altar are you bowing at?


How would you describe your decision making process, WH?

I love technological progress. Not hauling my own water and kindling for fire is huge. I'm grateful for that, and a lot of other things. But it doesn't follow from that that science should get to set the table for me politically.

[MannyIsGod]

In essence you have absolutely no problem accepting the results of science in pretty much every aspect of your life WH. However, when scientists are upset about the political process ignoring facts they are arrogant.

Are you arrogant when you post the articles that point out problems in the political process? What altar is that?

[Winehole23]

However, when scientists are upset about the political process ignoring facts they are arrogant.

nope, but applying the scientific method to politics over a consensual political tradition built up over a couple of hundred years sure would be.

[Winehole23]

aside: in the US anti-science at udes correlate strongly with higher levels of education.

[z0sa]

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.

You're basically asking politicians to stop being human once they get into office. That's always gonna be the problem with humanity, yknow. Being human. Getting intimidated. Feeling scared or angry or slighted or abused. Emotional overall. Having pride. Dealing with constant mixtures of obstruction and pacifism. And these guys are almost always looking to garner votes and defend the honor of their party. These are the things that stop empiricism from occurring in politics consistently.

BTW, I do think our guys at Capitol Hill do approach many issues empirically. Just not all.

[Winehole23]

I don't even know what you mean by politics being rigged to produce outcomes favorable to science.

you think scientific truth should win, but public policy bows to political interests instead. you think that's a problem; I think that's proper and as designed.

[Winehole23]

in politics, accountability to political cons uencies > accountability to science

[Winehole23]

sometimes works that way in scientific ins utions too, or so I've heard . . .

[Winehole23]

Irrationality can't be eradicated from politics, nor should it be. It can be made more rational than it is, perhaps, but I doubt that's a solution for anything.

[Winehole23]

though, it might gratify butthurt rationalists who think the rest of the world should resemble them

[Winehole23]

..and is wrong for not resembling them

[Blake]

aside: in the US anti-science at udes correlate strongly with higher levels of education.

Huh?

[Winehole23]

I'll see if I can find the study...