3 ms·

An expert is a person who has become a major voice on an active mailing list.* Next question. :) Science and politics don't mix, but policy will have to becom

by beefman 16y ago

An expert is a person who has become a major voice on an active mailing list.* Next question. :) Science and politics don't mix, but policy will have to become more scientific if society is going to continue to improve itself. I think the Chinese understand this. Many of those who've risen to expert status in the U.S. today have done so after years of public mistrust of science (starting in 1969) and adoption of the ex novo "democracy" I described. IOW, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Macroeconomics is one of the biggest pseudosciences out there. But I'd still rather have Bernanke answering to the four most bitterly opposed macro bloggers than the House committee he just had to answer to. We recently saw the public exert unprecedented pressure on the Fed, via a discourse that resembled raw sewage. Would you rather have Dodd-Frank, or something that originated at a mechanism design conference? * Sigh: or writes a widely-cited blog.

parasubvert 16y ago
My point about science and polticw was that there are attempts for politics to become more scientific, but politicians (along with big business managers, to a degree) want definitive answers, not equivocation and hypotheses that haven't been proven. Thus we get "scientists" guiding them based on their political views, charisma or communication skills, not on the actual evidence. I am not advocating for anti-intellectualism, but I am notimg that there is a reason for mistrust of science: it too can be abused to push an agenda by "acting" before the science can give you clear answers. Examples include Jean Mayer and Ancel Keys in nutrition (heavily influenced The first US policy on nutrition via George McGovern in the early 70s); Greenspan in economics (free money for far too long, pushing the belief the financial market wouldn't screw itself over even though they have time and again) On the other hand I'm actually kind of happy that the Internet has made a meritocracy of expertise via blogs and mailing lists - credentials are too easily abused.

by beefman 16y ago

parasubvert 16y ago

My point about science and polticw was that there are attempts for politics to become more scientific, but politicians (along with big business managers, to a degree) want definitive answers, not equivocation and hypotheses that haven't been proven. Thus we get "scientists" guiding them based on their political views, charisma or communication skills, not on the actual evidence. I am not advocating for anti-intellectualism, but I am notimg that there is a reason for mistrust of science: it too can be abused to push an agenda by "acting" before the science can give you clear answers. Examples include Jean Mayer and Ancel Keys in nutrition (heavily influenced The first US policy on nutrition via George McGovern in the early 70s); Greenspan in economics (free money for far too long, pushing the belief the financial market wouldn't screw itself over even though they have time and again) On the other hand I'm actually kind of happy that the Internet has made a meritocracy of expertise via blogs and mailing lists - credentials are too easily abused.