Scientists should be in charge of everything.

[dex4974]

And I think they will be one day if AI isn't running the show instead. It's ridiculous that the most qualified people don't have the loudest voices in matters that have very real impacts on all of us. I know a lot of people won't agree, but try to have the humility to understand your own ignorance in any given matter compared to a scientist that specializes in it.

EDIT: Ideally unions of scientists with safeguards to prevent corruption. I think they'd do a better job of it than anybody else. I have the most confidence in the people that know more than anybody else.

 

[dex4974]

To clarify a little I am being broad when I say "scientist." I am essentially arguing for meritocracy. I believe the most knowledgeable people in any given matter should have the most authority in that matter.

 

[Moderate Right]

And I think they will be one day if AI isn't running the show instead. It's ridiculous that the most qualified people don't have the loudest voices in matters that have very real impacts on all of us. I know a lot of people won't agree, but try to have the humility to understand your own ignorance in any given matter compared to a scientist that specializes in it.

EDIT: Ideally unions of scientists with safeguards to prevent corruption. I think they'd do a better job of it than anybody else. I have the most confidence in the people that know more than anybody else.

LOL. There are scientists on both sides of every issue. Which ones should be in charge?

 

[dex4974]

LOL. There are scientists on both sides of every issue. Which ones should be in charge?

If there are disagreements between bodies of scientists there can be protocols to sort that out through deliberation and come to a decision about how to proceed. At least scientists would disagree constructively and with some class unlike 99% of people. It'd be a lot easier to make progress.

 

[Craig234]

Scientists have an important role. But the bottom line in politics is how power and wealth are divided, and any group is subject to corruption, simply placing scientists in charge will provide facts, but not resolve values and policies.

That's why it was left to the people to choose representatives, but that process is badly corrupted.

 

[dex4974]

Scientists have an important role. But the bottom line in politics is how power and wealth are divided, and any group is subject to corruption, simply placing scientists in charge will provide facts, but not resolve values and policies.

That's why it was left to the people to choose representatives, but that process is badly corrupted.

Scientists are not more prone to corruption than any other group with power. Human corruptibility is a factor no matter what. Scientists would do a better job.

 

[Dayton3]

To clarify a little I am being broad when I say "scientist." I am essentially arguing for meritocracy. I believe the most knowledgeable people in any given matter should have the most authority in that matter.

dumb idea. "knowledge" and "good judgement" are in no way synonymous.

 

[AmNat]

And I think they will be one day if AI isn't running the show instead. It's ridiculous that the most qualified people don't have the loudest voices in matters that have very real impacts on all of us. I know a lot of people won't agree, but try to have the humility to understand your own ignorance in any given matter compared to a scientist that specializes in it.

EDIT: Ideally unions of scientists with safeguards to prevent corruption. I think they'd do a better job of it than anybody else. I have the most confidence in the people that know more than anybody else.

"Scientific public policy" is in large part responsible for the bad condition of present-day USG.

If an idea can't rationally be explained to a person with an IQ of 100, it shouldn't be allowed to influence government action.

 

[ASHES]

There is no political system yet conceived that will serve all equally, let alone the ability to implement such a system. Even though we're a social species that thrives and grows in larger and larger social groups, we are also all fundamentally individually selfish creatures. We have progressed enough we can devise social solutions that allow millions, hundreds of millions, and even over a billion, humans to act as one with a single purpose. Yet we are also so base that we stand in lines to hoard toilet paper, and kill each other over our breathing hole shields, continuing to divide ourselves into smaller and smaller squabbling factions based on the most trivial of things. Is there a solution to peace on earth? I say we've given it the ol' college try, but when we have the technology, let the AI give it a go.

 

[dex4974]

dumb idea. "knowledge" and "good judgement" are in no way synonymous.

Knowledge creates more opportunity for good judgment. Nobody is in a better position to have good judgement. Nobody is saying scientists are perfect, just that they know the most.

 

[dex4974]

"Scientific public policy" is in large part responsible for the bad condition of present-day USG.

If an idea can't rationally be explained to a person with an IQ of 100, it shouldn't be allowed to influence government action.

Our path forward shouldn't be limited by people with an IQ of 100.

 

[dex4974]

There is no political system yet conceived that will serve all equally, let alone the ability to implement such a system. Even though we're a social species that thrives and grows in larger and larger social groups, we are also all fundamentally individually selfish creatures. We have progressed enough we can devise social solutions that allow millions, hundreds of millions, and even over a billion, humans to act as one with a single purpose. Yet we are also so base that we stand in lines to hoard toilet paper, and kill each other over our breathing hole shields, continuing to divide ourselves into smaller and smaller squabbling factions based on the most trivial of things. Is there a solution to peace on earth? I say we've given it the ol' college try, but when we have the technology, let the AI give it a go.

I'm pretty sure AI will take over eventually.

 

[newpublius]

"Scientific public policy" is in large part responsible for the bad condition of present-day USG.

Indeed, Hayek refers to it as the fatal conceit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fatal_Conceit

The problem is that there are 300mn+ people whose tastes and preferences are changing constantly.

 

[ASHES]

LOL. There are scientists on both sides of every issue. Which ones should be in charge?

What practical field of science has a 50/50 split among scientists in that field of study on questions of political relevance?

 

[dex4974]

What practical field of science has a 50/50 split among scientists in that field of study on questions of political relevance?

Can you imagine a group of scientists from a multitude of fields rationally debating our best path forward as a species and actually having the power to implement the things they come to agree on?

I'm a dreamer...

 

[newpublius]

Can you imagine a group of scientists from a multitude of fields rationally debating our best path forward as a species and actually having the power to implement the things they come to agree on?

I'm a dreamer...

Yes, I do, it was called Somalia.

Scientific socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Society is comprised of millions upon millions of individuals and families. Each individual’s preferences are uniquely his or her own. My preferences for safety and health differ from yours. Sure, guy like Fauci knows alot about viruses, but can he possibly have any insight into the complex tradeoffs required of 300mn+ people? I think not.

That's the fatal conceit.

 

[Dayton3]

Knowledge creates more opportunity for good judgment. Nobody is in a better position to have good judgement. Nobody is saying scientists are perfect, just that they know the most.

where do you get that idea?

Governing often makes it important to have a wide range of knowledge about a huge variety of subjects. "Scientists" tend to be much more narrowly focused for obvious reasons.

 

[AmNat]

Our path forward shouldn't be limited by people with an IQ of 100.

When you're barreling over a cliff, any limits on your "path forward" are a good thing.

 

[dex4974]

Yes, I do, it was called Somalia.

Scientific socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Society is comprised of millions upon millions of individuals and families. Each individual’s preferences are uniquely his or her own. My preferences for safety and health differ from yours. Sure, guy like Fauci knows alot about viruses, but can he possibly have any insight into the complex tradeoffs required of 300mn+ people? I think not.

That's the fatal conceit.

Economic scientists? This is not Somalia. A union of qualified scientists could run society just fine. Not all of them would agree and that would be a vital part of the process.

 

[dex4974]

where do you get that idea?

When you are more informed you have a more nuanced view which allows you to make better, more informed decisions.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

And I think they will be one day if AI isn't running the show instead. It's ridiculous that the most qualified people don't have the loudest voices in matters that have very real impacts on all of us. I know a lot of people won't agree, but try to have the humility to understand your own ignorance in any given matter compared to a scientist that specializes in it.

EDIT: Ideally unions of scientists with safeguards to prevent corruption. I think they'd do a better job of it than anybody else. I have the most confidence in the people that know more than anybody else.

So you want Doctor Caucteau to run the country?

 

[newpublius]

A union of qualified scientists could run society just fine.

No, they really can't, the problem is information and there's just too much of it for them to even remotely intend to grasp.

 

[dex4974]

So you want Doctor Caucteau to run the country?

No, I don't want any one scientist to be particularly powerful. I want a union of scientists that constantly deliberates over matters in depth to run the country.

 

[Craig234]

Scientists are not more prone to corruption than any other group with power.

I didn't say they were, so you misrepresented my post. I said they're not immune, if given that power. You might have heard, 'power tends to corrupt'.

 

[dex4974]

the problem is information and there's just too much of it.

That's why you need informed people to sort things out and make good decisions.