Scientists should be in charge of everything.

[Paradoxical]

Disagree.

Scientists should be in charge of Science.

I have no more interest in placing them in charge of the economy or housing, or transportation policy, immigration policy, etc. etc.... than I have in placing investment bankers or insurance executives in charge of health care policy or medical research, etc.

Good leaders aren't supposed to be experts at everything (as Trump pretends to be). Good leaders inform themselves, and base their decisions, via the best advice of experts in a given subject matter.

Just my .02 cents.

And when scientists and doctors disagree on the interpretation of the weak data presented to them? Are those who disagree to be shut out by Twitter, FaceBook, Google, Instagram and YouTube?

This is just like the Medieval days where it was a crime punishable by death to question the bible and NO dissent of how the priests and bishops interpreted scripture was allowed.

Your left wing side has developed into a cult of their own in all matters now. "Authority" is not to be challenged.

 

[dex4974]

NO ONE who is in a cult thinks he or she is. I am saying that it is a known fact that cults use mind control and powerful people (bishops, priests) to tell the people the "truth" and when they are questioned, they will recite some verse that they CLAIM proves them right. If you then say that there is no proof of the bible they will claim that many prophecies have come true. When you ask them what those are and research them online, you find they are stretching things and assuming things and really just making stuff up. When you confront them with that, you get their final playing card which is that those who study and interpret such things know more than you do, soshut up.

The above tactics are IDENTICAL to what the left is doing when they find scientists and doctors who just interpret the data the way they want to. You then agree with them and any opposing opinions that looks at the data differently is shouted down as the doubter not being a scientist. The proof of this is that there more than several doctors who questioned masks and immunity and their video was removed by this new totalitarian press called YouTube, twitter and FB, who claim they are not the press, but still decide what we can see and not see.

The left is exactly like the Christians of the Middle Ages now.

Most people on the left are idiots. That doesn't really change anything about what's being argued though.

 

[Fishking]

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.

Errr....how about in charge of "some" things? Science is merely observations of the natural world to the best of our current understanding. It does not weigh in on anything related to morality. Like, science can actually be a cold hard bitch. You could easily advocate for eugenics if you only consider scientific variables.

Also, AI controlling everything seems like it's a bad idea as well. Who's to say it won't develop it's own brand of evil shit? Why do people automatically assume that it will just remain benevolently logical? Hell, you can even logic your way into extreme levels of oppression.

 

[Helix]

Apparently if scientists don't get everything 100% perfect the first time it means science doesn't work and scientists can't be trusted.

i think that a lot of people don't understand the process, while others want the results to fit their political beliefs. most of us doing the work have a lot of integrity and take it extremely seriously.

 

[ASHES]

i think that a lot of people don't understand the process, while others want the results to fit their political beliefs. most of us doing the work have a lot of integrity and take it extremely seriously.

Exactly... unlike our politicians who mostly see public service as a way to grease palms and line pockets. Maybe that's just the nature of power, and why AI should handle policy.

 

[ultmd]

And when scientists and doctors disagree on the interpretation of the weak data presented to them?

Is this a question? If so, I don't understand.

Doctors and scientists don't act on "weak data". When data is "weak", we get to work and make it stronger.

Are those who disagree to be shut out by Twitter, FaceBook, Google, Instagram and YouTube?

I don't care what social media says or does. What does this have to do with anything I said? You seem to have an agenda or particular grievance, but you're being vague about it. Why not just get to it?

This is just like the Medieval days where it was a crime punishable by death to question the bible and NO dissent of how the priests and bishops interpreted scripture was allowed.

You are really confused, if you're trying to equate scientists and doctors recommendations to those of the ancient Roman Catholic Church (or any other religious institution. That's not how science and medicine work. There's this thing called the Scientific Method. That's how we do things. You should look it up.

Your left wing side has developed into a cult of their own in all matters now. "Authority" is not to be challenged.

This is just dumb. Ignorance and stupidity must always be challenged...especially when that ignorance is being promoted as (in any way) an equal alternative to objective science.

 

[Paradoxical]

Most people on the left are idiots. That doesn't really change anything about what's being argued though.

While I agree with you, it does seem to suggest that Christians and the the NEW left are easily indoctrinated by those in authority and all modern day humans have done is replaced priests with scientists. To illustrate this, all anyone need do is to look at how often these leftists quote WaPo, the NY Times, or some unknown doctor or scientist and try to shove their opinions down our throats, including that masks "work" when there are zero tests that qualify as scientific. If that doesn't work, they get a consensus of scientists like a bible banger would get Bishops and say "90% of all bishops (scientists) interpret this to mean ..................

 

[Helix]

Exactly... unlike our politicians who mostly see public service as a way to grease palms and line pockets. Maybe that's just the nature of power, and why AI should handle policy.

that's an interesting idea. have you read the Scythe series by Neal Shusterman? it's not bad sci fi. my wife and i just finished the audio books.

i've often wondered if the markets might be better managed by AI, and it would be difficult for AI to manage governance worse than we have lately. of course, it largely depends on the integrity of those who design the system. there's not a lot of that going around lately, so i won't throw my support behind the plan just yet.

 

[ASHES]

that's an interesting idea. have you read the Scythe series by Neal Shusterman? it's not bad sci fi. my wife and i just finished the audio books.

i've often wondered if the markets might be better managed by AI, and it would be difficult for AI to manage governance worse than we have lately. of course, it largely depends on the integrity of those who design the system. there's not a lot of that going around lately, so i won't throw my support behind the plan just yet.

Not my idea, it was in the OP and I argued for it in my first post here, but people got hung up on scientists.

 

[Paradoxical]

Is this a question? If so, I don't understand.

Doctors and scientists don't act on "weak data". When data is "weak", we get to work and make it stronger.


I don't care what social media says or does. What does this have to do with anything I said? You seem to have an agenda or particular grievance, but you're being vague about it. Why not just get to it?


You are really confused, if you're trying to equate scientists and doctors recommendations to those of the ancient Roman Catholic Church (or any other religious institution. That's not how science and medicine work. There's this thing called the Scientific Method. That's how we do things. You should look it up.


This is just dumb. Ignorance and stupidity must always be challenged...especially when that ignorance is being promoted as (in any way) an equal alternative to objective science.

They acted on weak data regarding the effectiveness of masks. NO human testing involved.Just speculations and assumptions. I have asked many people to the sound of crickets how it is smoke particulates easily go through masks when COVID virus that is many times smaller allegedly will be stopped. The posters here go away scratching their heads and don't answer. yet, they are perfectly willing to accept a few guys doing lab tests that show how WATER molecules are expelled through a sneeze through various materials. This is crazy stuff. We believe them just because they have initials behind their names and based on their WEAK, WEAL 'science' which isn't science at all but speculation.

 

[dex4974]

i think that a lot of people don't understand the process, while others want the results to fit their political beliefs. most of us doing the work have a lot of integrity and take it extremely seriously.

The idea that anything more than some absurd minority of scientists lack intellectual integrity is ridiculous.

 

[Helix]

The idea that anything more than some absurd minority of scientists lack intellectual integrity is ridiculous.

while there might be more effective ways of getting fired from a science job, most of them involve stripping naked and standing on one's desk while throwing feces. in every scientific job that i've ever worked, data integrity is more important than anything else.

 

[dex4974]

while there might be more effective ways of getting fired from a science job, most of them involve stripping naked and standing on one's desk while throwing feces. in every scientific job that i've ever worked, data integrity is more important than anything else.

I'd rather trust the scientists from websites like TheRealScienz.bullshit.

Any chance I'll see you at the next flat Earth convention?

 

[Helix]

I'd rather trust the scientists from websites like TheRealScienz.bullshit.

Any chance I'll see you at the next flat Earth convention?

nah. i don't gather in crowds during a pandemic if i can help it.

 

[ataraxia]

So let me get this straight - you want a government run by scientists, and only the scientists get to decide which scientists are in charge?

Where are you going to find all these scientists who agree with each other on anything? Do you even live in the real world?

There is agreement and overwhelming consensus among scientists on all modern science except at the most cutting, bleeding edge.

What I want is a government that listens to the experts in a given field to get the best facts we have on the matter, then can make decisions based on those facts. Facts are not based on popular opinion. What we do with those facts, however, can be.

For example, we can listen to the experts to the get the facts on the biology of Coronaviruses, on epidemiologic data, risk facts, routes of transmission, and mitigation techniques which might work. But after hearing those facts, however, we may decide we don't want to shut down the economy at all, because a few hundred thousand lives aren't worth the economic pain. Or we may decide we want to do a partial reopening to try to painfully juggle and compromise among these competing, but equally legitimate considerations. Or we may just decide to shut the economy down entirely. Those are all equally legitimate options, and we can choose between them based on our temperament, tastes, political agendas and considerations, etc...

But what is not OK is to question and dismiss the science altogether as some kind of hoax, and say scientists never agree with each other on anything, etc... all because we are afraid that acknowledging what they are saying is necessarily going to lead to a result we may not like.

 

[ataraxia]

With this whole virus thing the left make a lot of assumptions and say a lot of stupid stuff, such as masks only work for those with Covid breathing out but they do nothing for the wearer for breathing in. That slaps you right in the face as there is no common sense to it. If a mask stops particles from leaving you then it also stops particles you breathe in.

There are nice videos on Youtube showing how particles aerosolize with breathing/sneezing with and without masks. They are all over Youtube. The person wearing the masks stops almost all the particles from getting out. But once it IS aerosolized, however, the other person can breathe them in from the sides of the masks pretty easily.

One problem here, I think, is that people think their confusion or lack of understanding of a subject matter is evidence that the scientists are confused and don't understand.

 

[ataraxia]

Eugenics was proposed by scientists how'd that work out for the world?

View attachment 67296899

So this means we should dismiss all modern science? Or just the parts we don't like or understand too well?

 

[ataraxia]

Scientists disagree with each other all the time. That's what makes science science. You just want to take the word of the ones you agree with and ignore the ones you don't agree with. You are science deniers.

That's why we do everything from build airplanes to recommend cancer treatments based on the CONSENSUS of the experts in a given field. That's actually not too hard to obtain in most circumstances. But just like with every profession, there are always a few kooks and charlatans around. You can't let them paralyze the progress of science.

 

[joko104]

All this bickering about science and scientists is why I said back on page 1 let the AI have it.

Top AI experiments programming AI to be able to engage in human discusssion end up being turned off as each comes to declare its goal is to takeover the world.

 

[ataraxia]

Top AI experiments programming AI to be able to engage in human discusssion end up being turned off as each comes to declare its goal is to takeover the world.

Hmmm... I wonder if it would be so bad to let them try. Not sure we can assume it would be a bad thing.

 

[joko104]

Hmmm... I wonder if it would be so bad to let them try. Not sure we can assume it would be a bad thing.

AI will reflect the programmers. That won't be you or I.

 

[ataraxia]

And when scientists and doctors disagree on the interpretation of the weak data presented to them? Are those who disagree to be shut out by Twitter, FaceBook, Google, Instagram and YouTube?

This is just like the Medieval days where it was a crime punishable by death to question the bible and NO dissent of how the priests and bishops interpreted scripture was allowed.

Your left wing side has developed into a cult of their own in all matters now. "Authority" is not to be challenged.

Difference is: science has shown it works. Religion has shown it doesn't.

If, instead of modern agricultural science, we had found that dancing to the rain gods consistently gives us better and more plentiful crops and helps us mitigate the effects of droughts and avoid famines, then yes, I would say it would be prudent to listen to that shaman and have him teach us exactly how to do that rain dance.

 

[ataraxia]

AI will reflect the programmers. That won't be you or I.

Taste and temperament are certainly important. But some things are just objectively better. Some societies are just objectively happier, healthier, more productive, more functional, and able to fulfill more human potential than others.

 

[Torus34]

I am hardly in favor of having one group of specialists in charge of everything. That includes scientists. [Disclaimer: I'm a retired scientist. A chemist, in fact.]

Unfortunately, we select those who will represent us in out legislatures and administrations by one ability only; the ability to get [Ed.: and remain,] elected.*

One group of advisory specialists who are, as far as I can tell,. woefully under-represented in advisory positions are sociologists. I believe that is a clue, and a good one, as to the priorities of politicians.

Regards, stay safe and remain well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

* From one of my 'go to' sources: "Election, n. A process by which those without knowledge of the matters at hand choose one of their number to handle said matters." A Modern Dictionary, Fragmentary Press, 2016, Chelm, IA

 

[Mithrae]

Science is merely observations of the natural world to the best of our current understanding. It does not weigh in on anything related to morality.

Science can help analyze, explain, compare/contrast and systematize the moral intuitions which seem more or less universal among humans, albeit with some outdated, bizzarre or seemingly arbitrary variations from culture to culture.