Scientists should be in charge of everything.

[dex4974]

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'.

You missed my point. It doesn't matter that they're not immune because neither is anybody else. We can't escape human corruptibility. We have to work around it no matter what system we use.

 

[newpublius]

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

Their good decisions based on the best of information just isn't good enough compared to amount of information contained in market decisions.

I, Pencil by Leonard E. Read | Leonard E. Read

I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write. Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that’s all I do. You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery...

fee.org

 

[newpublius]

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

Its not in the realm of possibility. The tradeoffs are too complex for top down control. It simply does not work.

 

[dex4974]

Their good decisions based on the best of information just isn't good enough compared to amount of information contained in market decisions.

There are marketing scientists too.

 

[dex4974]

Its not in the realm of possibility.

I disagree.

 

[newpublius]

I disagree.

History is not with you. Perhaps the greatest information asymmetry of all is the stark difference between the enormously deep, rich, and personal knowledge that each individual has of himself or herself and the necessarily sparse and inadequate knowledge that government officials have of each of the individuals over whom they are empowered to rule.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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.

The science is very often not clear or has numerous opinions on the "facts". The science also often changes over several years as new or more evidence is studied.

 

[dex4974]

The science is very often not clear or has numerous opinions on the "facts".

Sometimes the best decision is not readily apparent and the best we can do is make the most informed decision that we can.

The science also often changes over several years as new or more evidence is studied.

It's a beautiful thing, transparent and self-correcting.

 

[dex4974]

History is not with you.

What I am suggesting has never actually been done the way I am saying it should be done.

 

[newpublius]

What I am suggesting has never actually been done the way I am saying it should be done.

Of course not, you'll do it the correct way?

I don't think so.

Know who makes the best decisions for me?

ME, definitely not you.

 

[dex4974]

Of course not, you'll do it the correct way?

I don't think so.

Know who makes the best decisions for me?

ME, definitely not you.

A lot of ignorant people are making decisions for you right now.

 

[Craig234]

You missed my point. It doesn't matter that they're not immune because neither is anybody else. We can't escape human corruptibility. We have to work around it no matter what system we use.

You missed my point, that you can't rely on them not to be corruptible. You need other ways to address corruption of government.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

Only if you agree to an equally powerful group of religious clergy to veto them.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A lot of ignorant people are making decisions for you right now.

Ones who have to make practical decisions. Your union of scientists would quickly devolve into the Jacobin club

 

[Dayton3]

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

"informed people" does not automatically imply that good decisions are made.

Do you remember how Oliver Wendell Holmes referred to President Roosevelt (no one is quite sure which one).

"A second class intellect...with a first class temperament".

 

[AmNat]

Economic scientists? This is not Somalia.

Neither was North Korea . . . before it became North Korea.

It's a beautiful thing, transparent and self-correcting.

The nice thing about this statement is how easily it can be applied to everything. E.g. the magic eight-ball should be allowed to govern society, since it's transparent and self-correcting.

What I am suggesting has never actually been done the way I am saying it should be done.

 

[dex4974]

You missed my point, that you can't rely on them not to be corruptible. You need other ways to address corruption of government.

No, I didn't miss you point. You can't rely on any group of people to be entirely incorruptible. That's why you need good safeguards and transparency.

 

[dex4974]

Only if you agree to an equally powerful group of religious clergy to veto them.

You want a group of non-academic religious people to have the power to veto the most academically educated people on Earth?

No.

 

[dex4974]

Ones who have to make practical decisions. Your union of scientists would quickly devolve into the Jacobin club

I think you're wrong. I think a better system could be made and maintained by more learned people.

 

[dex4974]

"informed people" does not automatically imply that good decisions are made.

An informed person is more likely and is in a better decision to make a good decision than an uninformed person. You're underestimating the value of knowledge.

 

[dex4974]

Neither was North Korea . . . before it became North Korea.

The nice thing about this statement is how easily it can be applied to everything. E.g. the magic eight-ball should be allowed to govern society, since it's transparent and self-correcting.

This is about what I expected from your side. Thanks. By the way I didn't say anything about the end of capitalism.

 

[Tim the plumber]

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.

The necessity is to have a law that says that presenting a lie as science sends you to jail.

The more respoonsible or the greater your gravitas in the presentation the more your are to be considered under oath.

Thus if a random bloke in a pub spouts drivel then nothing happens. If a man wears a white coat and appears on TV telling you that x is safe or whatever he is now under a much higher level of responsibility.

 

[dex4974]

The necessity is to have a law that says that presenting a lie as science sends you to jail.

The more respoonsible or the greater your gravitas in the presentation the more your are to be considered under oath.

Thus if a random bloke in a pub spouts drivel then nothing happens. If a man wears a white coat and appears on TV telling you that x is safe or whatever he is now under a much higher level of responsibility.

People of authority should always face consequences for deliberate misinformation. This would be covered by the safeguard and in my opinion should be taken very seriously. Obviously accuracy is paramount; that's the whole point.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I would amend the OP to say that policy should be arbitrated, not by scientists, but by scientific principles.

Rather than voting directly on policy right away, votes should be held on the desired outcome of policy. Based on the priorities of the representatives elected to Congress, a hierarchy of weighted priorities should be determined. This would numerically represent how important GDP growth is to Americans compared to how important climate change is to Americans, and how important reducing abortions is to Americans and how important reduced taxes are to Americans, etc. Each desired outcome would be weighted on a scale of 0-1 according to how much support each was given in the vote.

Much more can be agreed on with regard to outcomes than with regard to methods. No one is going to vote that they desire more gun violence as an outcome. No one is going to vote that they desire a higher rate of abortion as an outcome. No one is going to vote that they want less freedom as an outcome, etc...

After a weighted hierarchy of desired outcomes is determined, the methodology for evaluating and modeling those metrics would be debated in the broadest way possible, so that the methodology would be applied across all issues, and not cherry-picked from one issue to the next.

After both the hierarchy of outcomes and the methodology have passed both the house and the Senate, and been signed by the President. The agreed-on methodology would be applied in modeling each issue in a blind study, where all of the data is symbolically represented so that the people modeling the projected outcomes don't know whether a given variable represents gun deaths or stock prices.

The model that generates the highest overall projected outcome with the highest chance of success becomes the new policy. As new data comes in, the policy would be continuously revised based on applying the new data to the agreed-on methodology, until a new hierarchy of outcomes and a new methodology are voted on.

 

[dex4974]

I would amend the OP to say that policy should be arbitrated, not by scientists, but by scientific principles.

Rather than voting directly on policy right away, votes should be held on the desired outcome of policy. Based on the priorities of the representatives elected to Congress, a hierarchy of weighted priorities should be determined. This would numerically represent how important GDP growth is to Americans compared to how important climate change is to Americans, and how important reducing abortions is to Americans and how important reduced taxes are to Americans, etc. Each desired outcome would be weighted on a scale of 0-1 according to how much support each was given in the vote.

Much more can be agreed on with regard to outcomes than with regard to methods. No one is going to vote that they desire more gun violence as an outcome. No one is going to vote that they desire a higher rate of abortion as an outcome. No one is going to vote that they want less freedom as an outcome, etc...

After a weighted hierarchy of desired outcomes is determined, the methodology for evaluating and modeling those metrics would be debated in the broadest way possible, so that the methodology would be applied across all issues, and not cherry-picked from one issue to the next.

After both the hierarchy of outcomes and the methodology have passed both the house and the Senate, and been signed by the President. The agreed-on methodology would be applied in modeling each issue in a blind study, where all of the data is symbolically represented so that the people modeling the projected outcomes don't know whether a given variable represents gun deaths or stock prices.

The model that generates the highest overall projected outcome with the highest chance of success becomes the new policy. As new data comes in, the policy would be continuously revised based on applying the new data to the agreed-on methodology, until a new hierarchy of outcomes and a new methodology are voted on.

That's different than what I suggested but sounds more desirable than what we currently do. I still like my idea more, but short of that I'd definitely be on board with this.