• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists should be in charge of everything.

dex4974 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it is necessary for politicians to lie.

Within the negotiations of the UK leaving the EU, at present, there is no deal possible. Hopefull this will change as the deadline approaches. Both sides need to represent positions that are further away than they actually are.

But if we have a proscription against lying about science then such things as the evil of car companies cheating the emmissions tests would be actionable.
 
newpublius said:
Yes, I do, it was called Somalia.

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org 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.
Click to expand...
The idea that a reality tv star would know better is pretty laughable
 
dex4974 said:
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.
Click to expand...
no they shouldn't be in charge of everything.
 
dex4974 said:
Yes they should.
Click to expand...
opinion noted. your opinion is not fact.
scientists are just as easily corrupted as politicians.

that is why they recall papers all the time.
 
ludin said:
scientists are just as easily corrupted as politicians.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and addressed above.
ludin said:
that is why they recall papers all the time.
Click to expand...

Maybe a lot of scientists are more honest than you think. Maybe it was less a lie and more an oversight. Science is self-correcting.
 
dex4974 said:
Irrelevant and addressed above.


Maybe a lot of scientists are more honest than you think. Maybe it was less a lie and more an oversight. Science is self-correcting.
Click to expand...
no it is valid and destroys your argument.
science is only self correcting if the scientists are not corrupted by money and outside influence.

science has been wrong many times and it takes decades to correct it sometimes.

do you really want horribly bad laws in place for decades before they are fixed? i don't.
 
ludin said:
no it is valid and destroys your argument.
science is only self correcting if the scientists are not corrupted by money and outside influence.

science has been wrong many times and it takes decades to correct it sometimes.

do you really want horribly bad laws in place for decades before they are fixed? i don't.
Click to expand...
We have had that throughout the history of the country. It is ridiculous that our leaders should not be determined by meritocracy but rather by popularity
 
dex4974 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You apparently have have not read some of the juvenile trash talking from scientists on hot butte. TOpics like climate change, treating disagreement like people hear do trump.

Scientists are humans with all the flaws everyone else has, and political science is as “soft” as science gets.
 
Simpletruther said:
You apparently have have not read some of the juvenile trash talking from scientists on hot butte. TOpics like climate change, treating disagreement like people hear do trump.

Scientists are humans with all the flaws everyone else has, and political science is as “soft” as science gets.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying scientists aren't human too. The protocols for fleshing out disagreements in a scientific union that runs the country/world would obviously be different than individuals arguing on a message board.
 
ASHES said:
What practical field of science has a 50/50 split among scientists in that field of study on questions of political relevance?
Click to expand...
LOL. So, you're saying that if scientists are split 55/45 then obviously the 55% are correct? Do you realize that at one time about 100% of scientists thought that the Earth was the center of the solar system?
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. So, you're saying that if scientists are split 55/45 then obviously the 55% are correct? Do you realize that at one time about 100% of scientists thought that the Earth was the center of the solar system?
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. So, you're saying that if scientists are split 55/45 then obviously the 55% are correct? Do you realize that at one time about 100% of scientists thought that the Earth was the center of the solar system?
Click to expand...
But tv reality star are right 100% of the time. Lol
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. So, you're saying that if scientists are split 55/45 then obviously the 55% are correct? Do you realize that at one time about 100% of scientists thought that the Earth was the center of the solar system?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying in established fields of study today, there is generally a consensus with a large gap. Such gaps aren't created by populism, they're based on the merit of the evidence, regardless of partisan leanings. There was never a time when 100% of scientists believed the earth was flat, because it was proven the earth wasn't flat before scientists knew they were sciencing and there were no established methodologies.
 
ASHES said:
No, I'm saying in established fields of study today, there is generally a consensus with a large gap. Such gaps aren't created by populism, they're based on the merit of the evidence, regardless of partisan leanings. There was never a time when 100% of scientists believed the earth was flat, because it was proven the earth wasn't flat before scientists knew they were sciencing and there were no established methodologies.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what you are saying. There are scientists on both sides of every issue. As I said, many years ago there was about a 100% consensus that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Should we have just gone with that and rejected all other science, as you want?
 
Moderate Right said:
Then what are you saying? I already said there are scientists on both sides of every issue. Both sides are following the science.
Click to expand...

I explained to you what I'm saying. Go read it again.
 
Lutherf said:
The ones that are right, of course!
Click to expand...

Sometimes complicated decisions have to be made. I would rather have unions of scientists deliberating on how to make those decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom