26 ms·

Too politicized. We have plenty of “science based government” and they all failed. Yes Trump failed big, but the CDC also failed, as well as the WHO. The whole

by htk 6y ago

Too politicized. We have plenty of “science based government” and they all failed. Yes Trump failed big, but the CDC also failed, as well as the WHO. The whole world was in a big amateur hour dealing with the Coronavirus issue.

rogerkirkness 6y ago
Likewise lockdowns seem to be political now, even though they are scientifically ineffective regardless of how you look at it. There's a big difference between "health politician in chief" and "actually does real research" in terms of "science".
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  What would you think about a forum of scientists endorsed by years of published and peer reviewed research that is open to public scrutiny. I guess something like open source for scientists where thier track record and connections are transparent and not blocked by needless complecity and or paywalls. Scientists with skin in the game that have an incentive to stay faithful to honest investigation. Im just thinking out loud. Overall i agree with you as things currently stand. I'm just trying to think through a set of possible solutions.
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    complexity
- bitwize 6y ago
  > even though they are scientifically ineffective regardless of how you look at it. Two words: New Zealand. COVID can't get a foothold in there because every time it shows up, Jacinda locks the whole country down. The USA being literally the worst developed nation in the world in terms of COVID infection and death rate has everything to do with us playing slapsy maxie with a deadly pandemic and not having the political will to do what needs to be done to stop it from spreading.
pbw 6y ago
I said “science based government” in the HN title, but really it's about adding a relatively small science-based check and balance to an existing system. Not replacing what we have just inserting something to keep it from going totally off the rails. To tug it back to reality. Political differences are fine. But someone needs to step in if a branch of the government, any branch and any party, goes so drastically far afield of what is known to be true. Next time it might be 10X worse. We need to patch the OS and not just say “boy I’m glad that will never happen again!”
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  I would agree that in a society that basically measures political success on who is a better liar, we need a truth counterweight but how do we ensure that this does not become a tool of corrupt governments or officials to impose thier ideologies as absolute truth with selective reporting?
  - pbw 6y ago
    Yes counterweight is a great way to put it. I don't at all know how to implement this idea, but I feel strong if we don't figure that out, with the best minds we can find, we are doomed. Imagine Trump but more religious, with more power, more aggressive, more grandiose, more ties to dictators. We've seen proof positive the system is vulnerable to single loose cannon. We need to at least attempt to improve the system. To not do that is total negligence.
    - ganafagol 6y ago
      I applaud your idea, but it won't work. There are already checks and balances. The president is not a dictator. Congress is one of them. Both chambers are elected separately and provide a counterweight to a freewheeling president. Unless they also freewheel of course. The Surpreme Court is another one. Supposedly very educated, almost "wise" people sit there to stop things that go wrong if president AND congress go too far. You are proposing another instance that can stop bad things from happening if ALL of the above fail. If the majority in congress joins the president with nonsense. Both Chambers. AND the Surpeme Court too. All of those have to fail for your proposal to kick in and make sense. And you know what? If that happens, it's too late. If all the above fail, your Science Council will just be sucked into the same politicized dark alley that the other branches are in. Why? Becaude they don't exist in a vacuum. No matter how they are appointed, by election, by lifetime appointment, whatever process, once they have real power, this process can be corrupted just as much as for the other branches. You see it right now happening with the Supreme Court. People on the Science Council will live in the real world, they are not infinitely wise (wo)men falling from the sky. They need to be picked and agreed upon. If that process fails for congress AND presideny AND the Supreme Court, then it's going to fail here too. And worse, it can be counter productive. As long as the scientific community is as "independent" as it is today, a global community not answering to a single country, it can't be easily corrupted by one countries gov going crazy. The moment you install an official council with actual power, it can and will be. Now you'll have an official body where by some corrupted process the participants will officially denounce climate change science or covid or whatever, and now your assumed corrupt regime can point at it and use it in their favor. In summary, good idea at first sight, but unworkable when zooming in.

by htk 6y ago

rogerkirkness 6y ago

Likewise lockdowns seem to be political now, even though they are scientifically ineffective regardless of how you look at it. There's a big difference between "health politician in chief" and "actually does real research" in terms of "science".

diabeticApe 6y ago
What would you think about a forum of scientists endorsed by years of published and peer reviewed research that is open to public scrutiny. I guess something like open source for scientists where thier track record and connections are transparent and not blocked by needless complecity and or paywalls. Scientists with skin in the game that have an incentive to stay faithful to honest investigation. Im just thinking out loud. Overall i agree with you as things currently stand. I'm just trying to think through a set of possible solutions.
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  complexity
bitwize 6y ago
> even though they are scientifically ineffective regardless of how you look at it. Two words: New Zealand. COVID can't get a foothold in there because every time it shows up, Jacinda locks the whole country down. The USA being literally the worst developed nation in the world in terms of COVID infection and death rate has everything to do with us playing slapsy maxie with a deadly pandemic and not having the political will to do what needs to be done to stop it from spreading.

pbw 6y ago

I said “science based government” in the HN title, but really it's about adding a relatively small science-based check and balance to an existing system. Not replacing what we have just inserting something to keep it from going totally off the rails. To tug it back to reality. Political differences are fine. But someone needs to step in if a branch of the government, any branch and any party, goes so drastically far afield of what is known to be true. Next time it might be 10X worse. We need to patch the OS and not just say “boy I’m glad that will never happen again!”

diabeticApe 6y ago
I would agree that in a society that basically measures political success on who is a better liar, we need a truth counterweight but how do we ensure that this does not become a tool of corrupt governments or officials to impose thier ideologies as absolute truth with selective reporting?
- pbw 6y ago
  Yes counterweight is a great way to put it. I don't at all know how to implement this idea, but I feel strong if we don't figure that out, with the best minds we can find, we are doomed. Imagine Trump but more religious, with more power, more aggressive, more grandiose, more ties to dictators. We've seen proof positive the system is vulnerable to single loose cannon. We need to at least attempt to improve the system. To not do that is total negligence.
  - ganafagol 6y ago
    I applaud your idea, but it won't work. There are already checks and balances. The president is not a dictator. Congress is one of them. Both chambers are elected separately and provide a counterweight to a freewheeling president. Unless they also freewheel of course. The Surpreme Court is another one. Supposedly very educated, almost "wise" people sit there to stop things that go wrong if president AND congress go too far. You are proposing another instance that can stop bad things from happening if ALL of the above fail. If the majority in congress joins the president with nonsense. Both Chambers. AND the Surpeme Court too. All of those have to fail for your proposal to kick in and make sense. And you know what? If that happens, it's too late. If all the above fail, your Science Council will just be sucked into the same politicized dark alley that the other branches are in. Why? Becaude they don't exist in a vacuum. No matter how they are appointed, by election, by lifetime appointment, whatever process, once they have real power, this process can be corrupted just as much as for the other branches. You see it right now happening with the Supreme Court. People on the Science Council will live in the real world, they are not infinitely wise (wo)men falling from the sky. They need to be picked and agreed upon. If that process fails for congress AND presideny AND the Supreme Court, then it's going to fail here too. And worse, it can be counter productive. As long as the scientific community is as "independent" as it is today, a global community not answering to a single country, it can't be easily corrupted by one countries gov going crazy. The moment you install an official council with actual power, it can and will be. Now you'll have an official body where by some corrupted process the participants will officially denounce climate change science or covid or whatever, and now your assumed corrupt regime can point at it and use it in their favor. In summary, good idea at first sight, but unworkable when zooming in.