3 ms·

The last step of the Scientific Method is not "make policy".

epistasis 9y ago
Whom do you think is saying that? Or, conversely, are you trying to say that policy should be made in a vacuum ignoring science?
- nsxwolf 9y ago
  No. It's perfectly valid to use science to inform your policy decisions. But the headline demonstrates the recent tendency to assert that scientists should be the ones ultimately making policy decisions. There's an important difference there.
  - epistasis 9y ago
    The headline does not demonstrate that, it's entirely an assumption from your own head. "Science was ignored today" doesn't even have an implication of scientists making policy.
    - nsxwolf 9y ago
      It absolutely does. Take two policy makers that both agree on the science of climate change. One advocates for a particular policy to mitigate the effects. The other decides that policy would be too expensive or cause other harms. The correctness of the science doesn't automatically mean the policy in question is wise.
      - epistasis 9y ago
        In your hypothetical situation, the headline would be an inaccurate headline.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    The people who make informed decisions need to be informed. While unelected scientists are not in a position of dictating policy, reason dictates policy should conform to scientific knowledge.
jdoliner 9y ago
This gets at the heart of the more interesting debate here. Scientists aren't sovereigns, at least not officially, although many people seem to want them to be. Somewhat counter-intuitively the same people who think government should only make "scientifically correct" policy decisions also seem to be the biggest proponents of Democracy. And yet Democracy is the reason we didn't make a "scientific" decision in this case. If Trump had stayed in PCA we might have had a similar article saying "Democracy was ignored today," after all Trump ran and won on an anti climate change platform. He would have been betraying his base on to exit PCA. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that by and large when people say they want Democracy they really mean "scientifically correct" government, which is to say government that's in keeping with mainstream scientists beliefs. The word "democracy" has become a shibboleth.
- epistasis 9y ago
  Democracy is a broad term. Trump even winning the office would indicate that democracy was ignored, according to most definitions (just not the one encoded by our laws) This is at best equivocating over definitions. Do more people in the us oppose the PCA than support it? Is Trump only supposed to represent those for votes for him or is he supposed to represent everyone?
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Representative democracies exist so that a people can choose representatives who will inform themselves better than the people who elected them can or has the resources to and then make informed decisions that will that will be the most beneficial to the people represented, even if those decisions may not be immediately popular among the represented. This is why we don't make popular consultations for every policy decision.

Whom do you think is saying that? Or, conversely, are you trying to say that policy should be made in a vacuum ignoring science?

nsxwolf 9y ago
No. It's perfectly valid to use science to inform your policy decisions. But the headline demonstrates the recent tendency to assert that scientists should be the ones ultimately making policy decisions. There's an important difference there.
- epistasis 9y ago
  The headline does not demonstrate that, it's entirely an assumption from your own head. "Science was ignored today" doesn't even have an implication of scientists making policy.
  - nsxwolf 9y ago
    It absolutely does. Take two policy makers that both agree on the science of climate change. One advocates for a particular policy to mitigate the effects. The other decides that policy would be too expensive or cause other harms. The correctness of the science doesn't automatically mean the policy in question is wise.
    - epistasis 9y ago
      In your hypothetical situation, the headline would be an inaccurate headline.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  The people who make informed decisions need to be informed. While unelected scientists are not in a position of dictating policy, reason dictates policy should conform to scientific knowledge.

jdoliner 9y ago

This gets at the heart of the more interesting debate here. Scientists aren't sovereigns, at least not officially, although many people seem to want them to be. Somewhat counter-intuitively the same people who think government should only make "scientifically correct" policy decisions also seem to be the biggest proponents of Democracy. And yet Democracy is the reason we didn't make a "scientific" decision in this case. If Trump had stayed in PCA we might have had a similar article saying "Democracy was ignored today," after all Trump ran and won on an anti climate change platform. He would have been betraying his base on to exit PCA. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that by and large when people say they want Democracy they really mean "scientifically correct" government, which is to say government that's in keeping with mainstream scientists beliefs. The word "democracy" has become a shibboleth.

epistasis 9y ago
Democracy is a broad term. Trump even winning the office would indicate that democracy was ignored, according to most definitions (just not the one encoded by our laws) This is at best equivocating over definitions. Do more people in the us oppose the PCA than support it? Is Trump only supposed to represent those for votes for him or is he supposed to represent everyone?
rbanffy 9y ago
Representative democracies exist so that a people can choose representatives who will inform themselves better than the people who elected them can or has the resources to and then make informed decisions that will that will be the most beneficial to the people represented, even if those decisions may not be immediately popular among the represented. This is why we don't make popular consultations for every policy decision.