22 ms·
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.
by 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 agoDemocracy 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 agoRepresentative 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.