8 ms·

This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falseh

by rplst8 8y ago

This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.

jboggan 8y ago
Lysenkoism happens in the American and European scientific establishments as well. As an example I would suggest Ancel Keys and the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  That's a bad example. It's a much more complex scenario, where the drugs that fight the expected cause of the disease does in fact help protecting against it. Confusing causality is very hard to solve.
  - mattnewport 8y ago
    If you're talking about statins, Ancel Keys was promoting shoddy science on high fat diets to influence government policy before statins were discovered.
tlb 8y ago
Who is the strongest proponent of using science blindly to affect government policy? What are their main arguments, and how do you disagree?
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  What do you mean by using science blindly? Three is NO way to do that. There are ways to misuse scientific results. Premature generalisation, assumptions of safety. Cherry picking to support preconceptions. Attributing strong support to tentative and/or unchallenged results. And more...
lmm 8y ago
If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut instinct? Of course science is imperfect, but it tends towards truth over time, whereas dogma and populism have no way of correcting mistakes that isn't just as likely to introduce new ones.
- genericone 8y ago
  Racial 'science' was used by the Nazi's to justify antisemitism, eugenics, and everything they did beyond that. The scientific method is important to be used, but don't trust something just because another person believes it to be science. You need the hypothesis and the verification method. Others (all of us) have the obligation to challenge both the hypothesis as well as the verification methods.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - scblock 8y ago
    So, 'science' not science? Got it. That was a pretty quick Godwining, by the way.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Those views really were thought to be rational and scientific at the time they were promulgated, though, and Nazism was only their most extreme expression.
      - iguy 8y ago
        The problem with the Nazis is that they were genocidal maniacs, not that they p-hacked their scientific papers. Genocidal maniacs have spouted many creeds, some of which sound much nicer (like brotherly love & eternal life... or equality of mankind & ownership of the means of production) and they are still evil. Because mass murder is wrong. Full stop. I think it's really dangerous to tie the wrongness of the supposedly scientific facts they spouted to the wrongness of their deeds. Dangerous because if it turns out they were right about some point, then you look like an idiot and have to change your tune. And dangerous because it warps subsequent science, to avoid such embarrassment. They believed in breeding a master race. In response to this, the acceptable opinion in the West ever since seems to have been that this is impossible, that humans are unique among creatures on this planet in that they are immune to the pressures of selective breeding. We can double the size of our chickens (and breed tame foxes, and smart dogs) but humans are apparently immutable. This is creationist nonsense, and it becomes more and more obviously nonsense every year. We need not have painted ourselves into such a stupid corner.
ptero 8y ago
The problem with this approach is that once you toss science there is not much left to inform policy decisions (religion? profit? personal views?). One less drastic solution may be to require a full disclosure of the process for all experimental results (to allow reproduction) and place much higher value in funding decisions on reproducibility. One particularly egregious approach reproducibility requirement can address is doing enough "independent" studies until you like the result, then report that one study only (e.g., toss a coin 10 times; repeat as a new study until you find 10 tails; report a new discovery). My 2c.
- lev99 8y ago
  > doing enough "independent" studies until you like the result, then report that one study only This happens not only in which studies get submitted to the public, but also which submitted studies get chosen for publication. Journals are proving to be a poor way to handle the amount of science humanity is doing.
- unknown_apostle 8y ago
  Heuristics: use what has worked in the past and keeps working well enough today? You don't need to fully understand why it works. Aka "conservatism" in the broadest sense.
  - DanAndersen 8y ago
    Exactly. Traditionalism isn't perfect, but it acts as a sort of long-term experimentation. That which has worked over long periods of time can be a good default to stick with. Environments do change, but the nature of humanity and society also has constants over time that are important to consider.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      The problem is that there is no turning back. Especially considering nutrition, chemistry, material science. Environment has changed enough - especially number of people - that attempting to use traditional methods en masse could be very risky. (Much less in nutrition or medicine where we have made major gains on the average.)
jellicle 8y ago
Well, you're in luck. Science has zero effect on government policy in all nations that I'm familiar with.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  That's obviously false.
peatmoss 8y ago
Absolutely. Science is the best mechanism we have for differentiating truth from falsehood when considering what is. But science tells us nothing about what should be. That’s the realm of morals, ethics, and its applied (mis)application: politics.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
Acknowledging that you included the word "blindly", but still: the alternative is what we're using now, which is ideology, and it sucks.
m-watson 8y ago
I agree it shouldn't be used blindly but that seems like the extreme. In fact the science side of things would say don't use anything blindly. Science isn't some infallible entity it is a process that is supposed to be self correcting over periods of time. That includes falsehoods from human bias and input. It doesn't always work and it is a slow process but in science's essence it is supposed to be minimizing those errors. But again, getting back to agreeing, scientific findings should not be used blindly, they should be used to inform. And as reproduction of findings occurs, the the topic that is being informed gets re-enforced or course corrected. It is very similar to policy, you have to try things. Some times the policy does what you want, other times it doesn't, and the process should continue and be correcting.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Of course science can and should be used to inform government policy, but that's a bit removed from technocracy, which I think is what the OP means to describe.
unabst 8y ago
Of course science flies in the face of democracy. Democracy gives all the power to individual subjective opinion. Hence the battle against emotional bias, fake news, and propaganda tactics which all work wonders in a democracy. This battle is fought with objective facts, which are only attainable by science. Science is the only tool specifically designed to weed out falsehoods and reach an objective consensus based on how nature works. How is this "subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor"? There is no substitute for science. We all seem to agree that democracy only works when the population is informed. Well, are we going to inform ourselves with the beliefs and tweets of those which we grant moral authority? Or science?
bbddg 8y ago
This quote from Einstein on the subject sums up my thoughts on this as well. "Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society." https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

by rplst8 8y ago

This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.

jboggan 8y ago

Lysenkoism happens in the American and European scientific establishments as well. As an example I would suggest Ancel Keys and the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease.

marcosdumay 8y ago
That's a bad example. It's a much more complex scenario, where the drugs that fight the expected cause of the disease does in fact help protecting against it. Confusing causality is very hard to solve.
- mattnewport 8y ago
  If you're talking about statins, Ancel Keys was promoting shoddy science on high fat diets to influence government policy before statins were discovered.

tlb 8y ago

Who is the strongest proponent of using science blindly to affect government policy? What are their main arguments, and how do you disagree?

AstralStorm 8y ago
What do you mean by using science blindly? Three is NO way to do that. There are ways to misuse scientific results. Premature generalisation, assumptions of safety. Cherry picking to support preconceptions. Attributing strong support to tentative and/or unchallenged results. And more...

lmm 8y ago

If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut instinct? Of course science is imperfect, but it tends towards truth over time, whereas dogma and populism have no way of correcting mistakes that isn't just as likely to introduce new ones.

genericone 8y ago
Racial 'science' was used by the Nazi's to justify antisemitism, eugenics, and everything they did beyond that. The scientific method is important to be used, but don't trust something just because another person believes it to be science. You need the hypothesis and the verification method. Others (all of us) have the obligation to challenge both the hypothesis as well as the verification methods.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- scblock 8y ago
  So, 'science' not science? Got it. That was a pretty quick Godwining, by the way.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Those views really were thought to be rational and scientific at the time they were promulgated, though, and Nazism was only their most extreme expression.
    - iguy 8y ago
      The problem with the Nazis is that they were genocidal maniacs, not that they p-hacked their scientific papers. Genocidal maniacs have spouted many creeds, some of which sound much nicer (like brotherly love & eternal life... or equality of mankind & ownership of the means of production) and they are still evil. Because mass murder is wrong. Full stop. I think it's really dangerous to tie the wrongness of the supposedly scientific facts they spouted to the wrongness of their deeds. Dangerous because if it turns out they were right about some point, then you look like an idiot and have to change your tune. And dangerous because it warps subsequent science, to avoid such embarrassment. They believed in breeding a master race. In response to this, the acceptable opinion in the West ever since seems to have been that this is impossible, that humans are unique among creatures on this planet in that they are immune to the pressures of selective breeding. We can double the size of our chickens (and breed tame foxes, and smart dogs) but humans are apparently immutable. This is creationist nonsense, and it becomes more and more obviously nonsense every year. We need not have painted ourselves into such a stupid corner.

ptero 8y ago

The problem with this approach is that once you toss science there is not much left to inform policy decisions (religion? profit? personal views?). One less drastic solution may be to require a full disclosure of the process for all experimental results (to allow reproduction) and place much higher value in funding decisions on reproducibility. One particularly egregious approach reproducibility requirement can address is doing enough "independent" studies until you like the result, then report that one study only (e.g., toss a coin 10 times; repeat as a new study until you find 10 tails; report a new discovery). My 2c.

lev99 8y ago
> doing enough "independent" studies until you like the result, then report that one study only This happens not only in which studies get submitted to the public, but also which submitted studies get chosen for publication. Journals are proving to be a poor way to handle the amount of science humanity is doing.
unknown_apostle 8y ago
Heuristics: use what has worked in the past and keeps working well enough today? You don't need to fully understand why it works. Aka "conservatism" in the broadest sense.
- DanAndersen 8y ago
  Exactly. Traditionalism isn't perfect, but it acts as a sort of long-term experimentation. That which has worked over long periods of time can be a good default to stick with. Environments do change, but the nature of humanity and society also has constants over time that are important to consider.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    The problem is that there is no turning back. Especially considering nutrition, chemistry, material science. Environment has changed enough - especially number of people - that attempting to use traditional methods en masse could be very risky. (Much less in nutrition or medicine where we have made major gains on the average.)

jellicle 8y ago

Well, you're in luck. Science has zero effect on government policy in all nations that I'm familiar with.

emodendroket 8y ago
That's obviously false.

peatmoss 8y ago

Absolutely. Science is the best mechanism we have for differentiating truth from falsehood when considering what is. But science tells us nothing about what should be. That’s the realm of morals, ethics, and its applied (mis)application: politics.

thaumaturgy 8y ago

Acknowledging that you included the word "blindly", but still: the alternative is what we're using now, which is ideology, and it sucks.

m-watson 8y ago

I agree it shouldn't be used blindly but that seems like the extreme. In fact the science side of things would say don't use anything blindly. Science isn't some infallible entity it is a process that is supposed to be self correcting over periods of time. That includes falsehoods from human bias and input. It doesn't always work and it is a slow process but in science's essence it is supposed to be minimizing those errors. But again, getting back to agreeing, scientific findings should not be used blindly, they should be used to inform. And as reproduction of findings occurs, the the topic that is being informed gets re-enforced or course corrected. It is very similar to policy, you have to try things. Some times the policy does what you want, other times it doesn't, and the process should continue and be correcting.

emodendroket 8y ago
Of course science can and should be used to inform government policy, but that's a bit removed from technocracy, which I think is what the OP means to describe.

unabst 8y ago

Of course science flies in the face of democracy. Democracy gives all the power to individual subjective opinion. Hence the battle against emotional bias, fake news, and propaganda tactics which all work wonders in a democracy. This battle is fought with objective facts, which are only attainable by science. Science is the only tool specifically designed to weed out falsehoods and reach an objective consensus based on how nature works. How is this "subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor"? There is no substitute for science. We all seem to agree that democracy only works when the population is informed. Well, are we going to inform ourselves with the beliefs and tweets of those which we grant moral authority? Or science?

bbddg 8y ago

This quote from Einstein on the subject sums up my thoughts on this as well. "Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society." https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/