3 ms·

> If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut instinct? I thought the parent comment made it clear: the alternative we are supp

> If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut instinct? I thought the parent comment made it clear: the alternative we are supposed to use is "democracy". That is, the people who are ruled should determine the rules that are imposed on them. Now, democracy does not preclude the use of science to make decisions. The voters may rely on science to inform their decisions (when the science is available). It does however preclude a rule by scientific experts/bureaucrats. But I also think it's foolish to frame the decision as solely one of "science" vs. "gut instinct". The are many phenomena, especially when it comes to human society, that are too causally dense for us to sufficiently tease out the causal factors to make accurate predictions. In those conditions, the goal should be to minimize the consequences of being wrong. We do that by decentralizing decisions to the greater extent possible.

AstralStorm 9y ago
How do you know democratizing decisions results in minimax optimal decisions? I would expect the result to be strongly biased due to societal norms, much less direct manipulation. Suppose a majority wants strong social programmes and basic income. The tiny problem is the economy is nowhere near big enough to afford it. Satisficing (!) executive branch puts some of the policies starving innovation and education budgets. Causing long term harm and stagnation. Where is the minimax decision in here? Over what timeframe? (P.s. I could've as easily picked liberal, fascist, military or conservative example. This one is relatively easy to understand.)
- lliamander 9y ago
  I should clarify that there were two parts to my answer: first was answering your question "on behalf of" the parent poster. It seemed their position was to "let people vote on it". I was somewhat defending that position, but more just clarifying that democracy wasn't necessarily in conflict with using science to make decisions. The second part of my response was to your framing of "science vs. gut-instinct". My point is that sometimes ignorance is thrust upon us by the complexity of the circumstances. In that case, my point was that decentralized policy making (separate from any notion of voting) was essential to reducing the worst case. In other words, I am not claiming that democratization "results in minimax optimal decisions". I am claiming that decentralized governance structures do "result in minimax optimal decisions". Does that change your question? edit: fixed spelling
lmm 9y ago
> In those conditions, the goal should be to minimize the consequences of being wrong. We do that by decentralizing decisions to the greater extent possible. In some cases yes. In others this doesn't seem to be the case - e.g. decentralised housing/planning/zoning policy seems to have lead to worse outcomes than more centralised approaches.
- lliamander 9y ago
  Genuinely curious: why do you think this is? I haven't surveyed zoning policies, so I don't know whether I agree with your conclusion, but I'd like to clarify a couple things. First, we must ask ourselves what the goal of optimal zoning policy is. Is it to maximize the number of people who live there? Achieve an ideal rent/wage ratio? Maximize the efficiency of shared infrastructure? Perhaps it is to maximize the desirability of living in an area. If that is the case, then if people are complaining about the house prices that may mean you're doing something right. In any case, assuming we settle on a shared metric (which may involve a combination of these various factors), we need to distinguish between comparing the average case and the worst case performance of centralized vs. decentralized zoning policy. I would say that my claim is that decentralized zoning policy will have a significantly better worst-case than centralized zoning policy, and that crafting a good zoning policy is enough of a gamble that I'd rather settle for a less-than-ideal decentralized policy than risk a horrendous centralized one. Now, to tie back to the original debate of scientific expertise in particular: would adding a group of economists and social scientists to the central planning committee tilt the situation in favor of central planning? I very much doubt it. "At the core […] is the idea that people should design for themselves their own houses, streets and communities. This idea […] comes simply from the observation that most of the wonderful places of the world were not made by architects but by the people." — Christopher Alexander et al., A Pattern Language, front bookflap[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
  - lmm 9y ago
    > Genuinely curious: why do you think this is? Because the costs of building new housing are local but the benefits are global, or at least more widely distributed than the costs. If one borough builds denser housing, that borough is the one that has to worry about building work, plumbing, schools and all the rest of it for those residents, while businesses from all its neighbours benefit from more customers and cheaper employees. For a starker example of the same effect think about taxation and public services: if we relied on local taxation being spent locally then rich areas would have low tax rates and high-quality public services (because even at low rates they can still raise a lot of money) while poor areas would have both higher taxes and worse services. Localised government is rather like privatisation: it works well when the costs and benefits are on the same scale, but rather less well when there are externalities.
iguy 9y ago
too causally dense for us to ... make accurate predictions. And even if we had perfect predictions, we would still have to choose what to do. For example, if we had a perfect economics, we could predict exactly how many people would be made unemployed compared to how many made how much richer by raising the minimum wage (or trade barriers, or taxes). How should we weight these? I think it's easy to greatly overstate how useful science is to policy-making. There are narrow areas where they should (and do) call a specialist in. But the big debates are not over factual, empirical, matters.

AstralStorm 9y ago

How do you know democratizing decisions results in minimax optimal decisions? I would expect the result to be strongly biased due to societal norms, much less direct manipulation. Suppose a majority wants strong social programmes and basic income. The tiny problem is the economy is nowhere near big enough to afford it. Satisficing (!) executive branch puts some of the policies starving innovation and education budgets. Causing long term harm and stagnation. Where is the minimax decision in here? Over what timeframe? (P.s. I could've as easily picked liberal, fascist, military or conservative example. This one is relatively easy to understand.)

lliamander 9y ago
I should clarify that there were two parts to my answer: first was answering your question "on behalf of" the parent poster. It seemed their position was to "let people vote on it". I was somewhat defending that position, but more just clarifying that democracy wasn't necessarily in conflict with using science to make decisions. The second part of my response was to your framing of "science vs. gut-instinct". My point is that sometimes ignorance is thrust upon us by the complexity of the circumstances. In that case, my point was that decentralized policy making (separate from any notion of voting) was essential to reducing the worst case. In other words, I am not claiming that democratization "results in minimax optimal decisions". I am claiming that decentralized governance structures do "result in minimax optimal decisions". Does that change your question? edit: fixed spelling

lmm 9y ago

> In those conditions, the goal should be to minimize the consequences of being wrong. We do that by decentralizing decisions to the greater extent possible. In some cases yes. In others this doesn't seem to be the case - e.g. decentralised housing/planning/zoning policy seems to have lead to worse outcomes than more centralised approaches.

lliamander 9y ago
Genuinely curious: why do you think this is? I haven't surveyed zoning policies, so I don't know whether I agree with your conclusion, but I'd like to clarify a couple things. First, we must ask ourselves what the goal of optimal zoning policy is. Is it to maximize the number of people who live there? Achieve an ideal rent/wage ratio? Maximize the efficiency of shared infrastructure? Perhaps it is to maximize the desirability of living in an area. If that is the case, then if people are complaining about the house prices that may mean you're doing something right. In any case, assuming we settle on a shared metric (which may involve a combination of these various factors), we need to distinguish between comparing the average case and the worst case performance of centralized vs. decentralized zoning policy. I would say that my claim is that decentralized zoning policy will have a significantly better worst-case than centralized zoning policy, and that crafting a good zoning policy is enough of a gamble that I'd rather settle for a less-than-ideal decentralized policy than risk a horrendous centralized one. Now, to tie back to the original debate of scientific expertise in particular: would adding a group of economists and social scientists to the central planning committee tilt the situation in favor of central planning? I very much doubt it. "At the core […] is the idea that people should design for themselves their own houses, streets and communities. This idea […] comes simply from the observation that most of the wonderful places of the world were not made by architects but by the people." — Christopher Alexander et al., A Pattern Language, front bookflap[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
- lmm 9y ago
  > Genuinely curious: why do you think this is? Because the costs of building new housing are local but the benefits are global, or at least more widely distributed than the costs. If one borough builds denser housing, that borough is the one that has to worry about building work, plumbing, schools and all the rest of it for those residents, while businesses from all its neighbours benefit from more customers and cheaper employees. For a starker example of the same effect think about taxation and public services: if we relied on local taxation being spent locally then rich areas would have low tax rates and high-quality public services (because even at low rates they can still raise a lot of money) while poor areas would have both higher taxes and worse services. Localised government is rather like privatisation: it works well when the costs and benefits are on the same scale, but rather less well when there are externalities.

iguy 9y ago

too causally dense for us to ... make accurate predictions. And even if we had perfect predictions, we would still have to choose what to do. For example, if we had a perfect economics, we could predict exactly how many people would be made unemployed compared to how many made how much richer by raising the minimum wage (or trade barriers, or taxes). How should we weight these? I think it's easy to greatly overstate how useful science is to policy-making. There are narrow areas where they should (and do) call a specialist in. But the big debates are not over factual, empirical, matters.