3 ms·

We have plenty of scientism already, but scientists are only listened to when it's convenient. See: vaccines, nuclear energy, starlink, and climate change. Bes

We have plenty of scientism already, but scientists are only listened to when it's convenient. See: vaccines, nuclear energy, starlink, and climate change. Besides, the interesting questions that drive politics aren't scientific ones. Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions.

eru 6y ago
> Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions. At least they aren't allowed to. Even if you don't allow to derive 'ought' from 'is', facts and reasoning can transform some simple 'oughts' into interesting consequences. Ie 'ought' plus 'is' can derive you another 'ought'. You still have to pick your initial 'oughts', of course. I agree with your first paragraph!