Scientists should be in charge of everything.

[dex4974]

Did you have any such smart ideas in mind? I asked for specifics. Mere speculation that there may come some time when the Scientific Overlords want to enact a policy that the rest of us are too dumb to understand even in outline doesn't seem like very solid grounds for such an extreme proposal. Ozone depletion was a pretty abstract issue, so is climate change, but these are widely 'understood' at enough of a rudimentary level for most folk in most countries to support action on them - and would have done much sooner were it not for the democracy-hampering effects of political partisanship and the influence of wealth/propaganda.





Sure, but what makes authoritarianism a more attractive or feasible solution than just aiming to improve democracy, such as by reducing the influence of money and partisanship in politics? Surely it was only the degraded state of American democracy which made Trump's election even remotely plausible in the first place.

I'm not a committee of scientists. I'm one person.

 

[Moderate Right]

Realistically some redneck plumber from Louisiana isn't going to have a scientific breakthrough. He was a scientist making new scientific progress. Nobody is saying minority scientists should be ignored.

You are saying that minority scientists should be ignored. When you say that the consensus should rule you are ignoring minority science. As in my example, if you ignore minority science we would have never gotten to the point where we realized that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.

 

[ASHES]

You are saying that minority scientists should be ignored. When you say that the consensus should rule you are ignoring minority science. As in my example, if you ignore minority science we would have never gotten to the point where we realized that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.

The consensus isn't written in stone. It can shift to any position that is supported by the evidence. What scientists, and you, shouldn't do is dismiss the consensus without adequate evidence. Just "disproving" it isn't enough, they also have to replace the current model with their own that also stands up to the rigour of scrutiny and can make more accurate predictions than the one it is replacing. None of this has anything to do with what people did or didn't accept as a fact centuries ago.

 

[vegas giants]

Did you have any such smart ideas in mind? I asked for specifics. Mere speculation that there may come some time when the Scientific Overlords want to enact a policy that the rest of us are too dumb to understand even in outline doesn't seem like very solid grounds for such an extreme proposal. Ozone depletion was a pretty abstract issue, so is climate change, but these are widely 'understood' at enough of a rudimentary level for most folk in most countries to support action on them - and would have done much sooner were it not for the democracy-hampering effects of political partisanship and the influence of wealth/propaganda.





Sure, but what makes authoritarianism a more attractive or feasible solution than just aiming to improve democracy, such as by reducing the influence of money and partisanship in politics? Surely it was only the degraded state of American democracy which made Trump's election even remotely plausible in the first place.

Why would you NOT want to have the best and brightest leading us?

 

[ataraxia]

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

That’s a popular misconception, particularly on the right. Yes, there are occasional kooks and charlatans who question the overwhelming consensus their colleagues for fame or money, but that’s all they are.

So no, the Earth is not flat, nor only 6000 years old, trickle down economics does not work- but vaccines do, climate change is real, man-made, and a serious threat to public health and prosperity, and wearing a mask is a good idea in a pandemic.

These are not a “both sides” issues.

 

[vegas giants]

You are saying that minority scientists should be ignored. When you say that the consensus should rule you are ignoring minority science. As in my example, if you ignore minority science we would have never gotten to the point where we realized that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.

Consensus rules science now.

 

[Moderate Right]

that’s a popular misconception, particularly on the right. Yes, there are occasional kooks and charlatans is go take on a contrarian position to the vast majority of the consensus their colleagues, but that’s all they are.

So no, the Earth is not flat, nor only 6000 years old, trickle down economics does not work- but vaccines do, climate change is real, man-made, and a serious threat to public health and prosperity, and wearing a mask is a good idea in a pandemic.

That’s not a “both sides” issue.

Yes, there were kooks and charlatans who tried claiming the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe. Some of them were even executed. That's the problem with you guys, you want the consensus to rule and to silence all others who have minority opinions. You would want us to live in the dark ages forever, constantly silencing all of those with differing viewpoints, including those who have science to back up their theories.

 

[vegas giants]

Yes, there were kooks and charlatans who tried claiming the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe. Some of them were even executed. That's the problem with you guys, you want the consensus to rule and to silence all others who have minority opinions. You would want us to live in the dark ages forever, constantly silencing all of those with differing viewpoints.

No one said silence except you.


That is all in your head

 

[Dans La Lune]

You are saying that minority scientists should be ignored. When you say that the consensus should rule you are ignoring minority science. As in my example, if you ignore minority science we would have never gotten to the point where we realized that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.

You are confusing religious dogma with science.

For the record, scientists should not be in charge of everything, because science is not a governing philosophy. Science is a methodology for understanding natural phenomena.

 

[dex4974]

You are saying that minority scientists should be ignored.

No, I'm not. Maybe it would be easier for you to understand if you stopped telling me what I think.

 

[dex4974]

You are confusing religious dogma with science.

For the record, scientists should not be in charge of everything, because science is not a governing philosophy. Science is a methodology for understanding natural phenomena.

Scientists of various types would do a better job with governing philosophy.

 

[ataraxia]

You are saying that minority scientists should be ignored. When you say that the consensus should rule you are ignoring minority science. As in my example, if you ignore minority science we would have never gotten to the point where we realized that the Earth was not the center of the solar system.

We are saying non-scientists should have no voice in the matter. Technical scientific issues are issues which must be decided within the scientific community itself. There are plenty of checks and balances within the community to pick up shams. Science is not a democracy. There is a reason scientific journals are peer reviewed, not left out for national referendum.

 

[ataraxia]

You don't know any savants, do you? Some can barely tie their own shoes or could carry on a conversation with you.

You don't understand how the human brain works. Seriously, you don't. The truly greatest "minds" inherently have the greatest narrow tunnel vision. It is one aspect that makes them so brilliant in their narrow field. It usually comes at the expense of other mental capabilities. Asserting scientific brilliant equates to being the most ethical doesn't even make sense. Nor have you explained why you claim scientists are the most ethical. Science and ethics often are at odds.

You posted about advancing the human race. Science would have all low IQ people sterilized or euthanized because IQ often is an inherited trait. In a sense, you agree with Hitler on eugenics if you claim science equates ethics.

Einstein was not an ethical person. Socially and in relationship he was a real creep. A true ego maniac. His ethics also were driven by emotion, not science. He was a strict pacifist UNTIL his sister was sent to a concentration camp. His EMOTIONAL response was to write to FDR warning about Germany on the A-bomb and urging the USA to build A-bombs. This had nothing to do with science, but rather emotional retribution and revenge.

That is before you get to the fact that find any scientist and you can quickly find another scientist declaring that scientist is exactly wrong. When a union of thousands and thousands of the brightest minds on Earth would agree to anything is never and their meetings would be nothing but chaos essentially each shouting "me! me!"

So next time you want to fly a plane, you think it’s just as fine if it was designed by an experienced aerospace engineer as a Manhattan real estate huckster?

Next time you or someone you know needs a brain tumor removed, you think it’s better to have it done by a car mechanic than an experienced brain surgeon?

 

[joko104]

So next time you want to fly a plane, you think it’s just as fine if it was designed by an experienced aerospace engineer as a Manhattan real estate huckster?

Next time you or someone you know needs a brain tumor removed, you think it’s better to have it done by a car mechanic than an experienced brain surgeon?

What does that have to do with this topic? Explain how a brain surgeon is inherently a most ethical person than an auto mechanic - or why the brain surgeon is a superior person in elective office.

Democrat Woodrow Wilson was a professor and had been President of Princeton. The perfect elected official according to the OPer - and apparently you. He was an open grotesque racist, KKK admirer and eugenicist - who got hundreds of thousands of Americans killed in WW1 and the cause of WW2 - one of the absolute worst presidents this country every had.

 

[Jay59]

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.

This is a really old idea. Marcus Aurelius promoted the idea of the philosopher king. It has never really worked.

The problem is that scientists make lousy managers and it is at bottom a management position. We have had two engineers as President, one from each party--Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. Both proved indecisive when action was called for.

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

This is more stereotype than truth. What is not a stereotype is tunnel vision. Scientists tend to specialize to an extreme degree.

Why would you NOT want to have the best and brightest leading us?

I have no problem with the best and the brightest. The problem is recognizing them when you see them. Trump has proven very adept at the job of running the country, but his personality quirks obscure that for a many people.

That’s a popular misconception, particularly on the right. Yes, there are occasional kooks and charlatans who question the overwhelming consensus their colleagues for fame or money, but that’s all they are. So no, the Earth is not flat, nor only 6000 years old, trickle down economics does not work- but vaccines do, climate change is real, man-made, and a serious threat to public health and prosperity, and wearing a mask is a good idea in a pandemic. These are not a “both sides” issues.

By your own standard, you should be a dedicated Trump fan. Instead, your ideology makes you a flat Earther.

Consensus rules science now.

Not now. Not ever. The concept is opposed to scientific process.

You are confusing religious dogma with science. For the record, scientists should not be in charge of everything, because science is not a governing philosophy. Science is a methodology for understanding natural phenomena.

This is more cogent.

What does that have to do with this topic? Explain how a brain surgeon is inherently a most ethical person than an auto mechanic - or why the brain surgeon is a superior person in elective office.

Democrat Woodrow Wilson was a professor and had been President of Princeton. The perfect elected official according to the OPer - and apparently you. He was an open grotesque racist, KKK admirer and eugenicist - who got hundreds of thousands of Americans killed in WW1 and the cause of WW2 - one of the absolute worst presidents this country every had.

This gets to the meat of the issue. I would not call TWW one of the worst Presidents ever, but he was not one of the good ones. Jimmy Carter is one of the finest humans on the planet, but he was a dreadful President. Donald Trump is no ones idea of Presidential, but he has proven quite adept at the position.

The idea does not work because we tend to judge too much by surface characteristics. Another problem is that the best choices will not want the job.

 

[vegas giants]

This is a really old idea. Marcus Aurelius promoted the idea of the philosopher king. It has never really worked.

The problem is that scientists make lousy managers and it is at bottom a management position. We have had two engineers as President, one from each party--Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. Both proved indecisive when action was called for.


This is more stereotype than truth. What is not a stereotype is tunnel vision. Scientists tend to specialize to an extreme degree.


I have no problem with the best and the brightest. The problem is recognizing them when you see them. Trump has proven very adept at the job of running the country, but his personality quirks obscure that for a many people.


By your own standard, you should be a dedicated Trump fan. Instead, your ideology makes you a flat Earther.


Not now. Not ever. The concept is opposed to scientific process.


This is more cogent.


This gets to the meat of the issue. I would not call TWW one of the worst Presidents ever, but he was not one of the good ones. Jimmy Carter is one of the finest humans on the planet, but he was a dreadful President. Donald Trump is no ones idea of Presidential, but he has proven quite adept at the position.

The idea does not work because we tend to judge too much by surface characteristics. Another problem is that the best choices will not want the job.

Trump is a mess. Consensus determines if you will drink the water from your tap

 

[dex4974]

This is a really old idea. Marcus Aurelius promoted the idea of the philosopher king. It has never really worked.

I don't want a king. Also you're underestimating the wide range of skills possessed by the smartest people on Earth.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

OK, let’s start with precisely which scientist should now be POTUS or governor of your state. After that has been established, then we can evaluate this idea further.

 

[vegas giants]

OK, let’s start with precisely which scientist should now be POTUS or governor of your state. After that has been established, then we can evaluate this idea further.

I think he is still arguing for elections....just by fellow professionals

 

[Moderate Right]

No, I'm not. Maybe it would be easier for you to understand if you stopped telling me what I think.

But that's what you said. You said the consensus should rule. That means you would refuse to listen to anyone not in the consensus. And, it means you still think the Earth is the center of the solar system because the consensus would never be changed if you didn't listen to the scientists who aren't in the consensus.

 

[vegas giants]

But that's what you said. You said the consensus should rule. That means you would refuse to listen to anyone not in the consensus. And, it means you still think the Earth is the center of the solar system because the consensus would never be changed if you didn't listen to the scientists who aren't in the consensus.

No that's not what it means. You are making stuff up

 

[Moderate Right]

We are saying non-scientists should have no voice in the matter. Technical scientific issues are issues which must be decided within the scientific community itself. There are plenty of checks and balances within the community to pick up shams. Science is not a democracy. There is a reason scientific journals are peer reviewed, not left out for national referendum.

My first post on this said that there are scientists on the opposite sides of every issue, so which scientists do we listen to?

 

[vegas giants]

My first post on this said that there are scientists on the opposite sides of every issue, so which scientists do we listen to?

Policy is based on consensus. It always has been


Deny that

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think he is still arguing for elections....just by fellow professionals

OK, but what qualifies (quantifies?) a person to rise to the level of top “professional” (in any field)? If it is “based on science” then it is not a matter of anyone’s opinion and should be objectively determined without need of any election.

 

[dex4974]

You said the consensus should rule.

I will wire you $20,000 if you show me where I have ever said the consensus should rule unquestionably.