4 ms·

Without out defending the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic, it’s patently absurd to think policy should be purely driven by science, policy must

by cascom 6y ago

Without out defending the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic, it’s patently absurd to think policy should be purely driven by science, policy must incorporate ethics, national interest, individual liberty, economics, and a host of other pertinent factors...

pbw 6y ago
My article says that this new science council would work with all three existing branches of the government. Not replace them. So, it is in no way suggesting it be driven “only by science”. It’s more a question of injecting a modicum of science into the existing system.
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  What do you propose would be appropriate in the hypothetical scenario in which science conflicts with basic human rights? Say for instance in the extreme example, there are too many people science suggests we need to depopulate. Or maybe such and such person is genetically predisposed to engage in disruptive or criminal activity therefore eugenics or pre-emptive incarceration. Reality may or may not reflect that but it wouldn't be the first time a powerful few used science to impose draconian and/or racist policies for political purposes.
  - pbw 6y ago
    I'm not proposing any specific implementation, I don't have one in mind, I'm only floating the goal. The goal is to get "some science" into the mix as a check and a balance. Not to have science take over or run things. Just something that most of the time provides a very gentle nudge or advisory role, but in the case of another Trump would kick in a bit more strongly. It was a disaster this time, and even if Biden wins, in 4 more years we could a second Trump-type, then a third, then a fourth. The country will not survive that. We need to do something to fix the root problem, not just wait around until it happens again. As for being hesitant to mess with what the founding fathers created this is a great commentary on that: https://youtu.be/Ti8cMxzmWoA https://youtu.be/Ti8cMxzmWoA
    - diabeticApe 6y ago
      No i do understand your point and i would agree that we need to introduce some science into the mix to protect us from our leaders and even ourselves in a sense. But since we're opening this can of worms you cant blame me for taking a critical analysis of the situation. We agree for the most part im just trying to spark a discussion to we can start thinking about some of the caveats of how to make this work in practice. As for the video i havent yet watched it so please excuse me if it already addresses some of what im saying but i appreciate the honest dialogue and i very much intend to take a look shortly. Ill follow up after ive taken a look.
      - pbw 6y ago
        To literally change the government would be a ten year project at least. I'm just raising it create discussion. I just think when Trump leaves office people are going to rapidly forget how bad it was. And another Trump (potentially Trump Jr) is just one election away from winning. But the idea is to guard against either party going nutso. Parties should be given the chance to steer the ship. But we shouldn't let them take apart the ship, and deny is there is water, something has to be out of bounds. Play is "freedom within constraints" there have to be constraints, reality should be a constraint.
        diabeticApe 6y ago
        Great commentary was a Joe Rogan clip? Im not impressed. And your arguing a point i never made.
        diabeticApe 6y ago
        Im not saying we shouldn't put the intentions of our founding fathers into context with the modern world im saying we should still protect individual human rights from government abuse of power. Isnt that what we were discussing? Protecting individuals from government abuse and authoritarian rule?
coretx 6y ago
Not a single individual could shape policy without it being driven by what you listed not even if they explicitly wanted to. The actual matter at hand is hidden in the second echelon who is responsible for (pre) selecting / making people decisionmakers. They don't go for the honest guy and neither the one who provides the best scientific proof for whatever needs to be decided. They rather go with the dirty rat who consistently shows to know how to book tangible results. It is this success that people desire to be associated with and it trumps everything else. ( And this statement is written by someone with 15+ years of experiences with proof based decission making on both a national and supranational level. )
- diabeticApe 6y ago
  Yes. I share your concern but its becoming apparent that the current state of affairs is breaking down. People are too smart they're seeing through the b.s. more and more by the day, and they're pissed. So what do we do now?
  - coretx 6y ago
    Step one is to NOT repeat the cycle. Einstein once said something about trying the same thing twice. Step two is the application of specialized, temporary but powerful guerrilla politics while we try to figure out what Step 3 ought to be. Just don't underestimate the power of step one in large numbers.
    - diabeticApe 6y ago
      Well my suggestion is that instead of waiting around and crossing our fingers that everything will work out, we just figure step 3. Because otherwise someone else will and they probably wont give two shits about any of us if it interferes with thier incentives.
      - coretx 6y ago
        If you figured out step 3 and still think that a more swift party could have rendered you susceptible to the threat described, it is highly likely step 3 in fact was not really figured out while probably failing to incorporate step one while being at it. Although this has been written somewhat frivolously I did not make a joke when trying to convey the importance of Not repeating the cycle. But if some choose to not heed this warning, please let them setup a political party diametrically opposing what they desire only to sabotage the very same party covertly. Or as Lenin once said, the best way to deal with opposition is to lead it. This way at least some of your energy will lead to results.

by cascom 6y ago

pbw 6y ago

My article says that this new science council would work with all three existing branches of the government. Not replace them. So, it is in no way suggesting it be driven “only by science”. It’s more a question of injecting a modicum of science into the existing system.

diabeticApe 6y ago
What do you propose would be appropriate in the hypothetical scenario in which science conflicts with basic human rights? Say for instance in the extreme example, there are too many people science suggests we need to depopulate. Or maybe such and such person is genetically predisposed to engage in disruptive or criminal activity therefore eugenics or pre-emptive incarceration. Reality may or may not reflect that but it wouldn't be the first time a powerful few used science to impose draconian and/or racist policies for political purposes.
- pbw 6y ago
  I'm not proposing any specific implementation, I don't have one in mind, I'm only floating the goal. The goal is to get "some science" into the mix as a check and a balance. Not to have science take over or run things. Just something that most of the time provides a very gentle nudge or advisory role, but in the case of another Trump would kick in a bit more strongly. It was a disaster this time, and even if Biden wins, in 4 more years we could a second Trump-type, then a third, then a fourth. The country will not survive that. We need to do something to fix the root problem, not just wait around until it happens again. As for being hesitant to mess with what the founding fathers created this is a great commentary on that: https://youtu.be/Ti8cMxzmWoA https://youtu.be/Ti8cMxzmWoA
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    No i do understand your point and i would agree that we need to introduce some science into the mix to protect us from our leaders and even ourselves in a sense. But since we're opening this can of worms you cant blame me for taking a critical analysis of the situation. We agree for the most part im just trying to spark a discussion to we can start thinking about some of the caveats of how to make this work in practice. As for the video i havent yet watched it so please excuse me if it already addresses some of what im saying but i appreciate the honest dialogue and i very much intend to take a look shortly. Ill follow up after ive taken a look.
    - pbw 6y ago
      To literally change the government would be a ten year project at least. I'm just raising it create discussion. I just think when Trump leaves office people are going to rapidly forget how bad it was. And another Trump (potentially Trump Jr) is just one election away from winning. But the idea is to guard against either party going nutso. Parties should be given the chance to steer the ship. But we shouldn't let them take apart the ship, and deny is there is water, something has to be out of bounds. Play is "freedom within constraints" there have to be constraints, reality should be a constraint.
      - diabeticApe 6y ago
        Great commentary was a Joe Rogan clip? Im not impressed. And your arguing a point i never made.
      - diabeticApe 6y ago
        Im not saying we shouldn't put the intentions of our founding fathers into context with the modern world im saying we should still protect individual human rights from government abuse of power. Isnt that what we were discussing? Protecting individuals from government abuse and authoritarian rule?

coretx 6y ago

Not a single individual could shape policy without it being driven by what you listed not even if they explicitly wanted to. The actual matter at hand is hidden in the second echelon who is responsible for (pre) selecting / making people decisionmakers. They don't go for the honest guy and neither the one who provides the best scientific proof for whatever needs to be decided. They rather go with the dirty rat who consistently shows to know how to book tangible results. It is this success that people desire to be associated with and it trumps everything else. ( And this statement is written by someone with 15+ years of experiences with proof based decission making on both a national and supranational level. )

diabeticApe 6y ago
Yes. I share your concern but its becoming apparent that the current state of affairs is breaking down. People are too smart they're seeing through the b.s. more and more by the day, and they're pissed. So what do we do now?
- coretx 6y ago
  Step one is to NOT repeat the cycle. Einstein once said something about trying the same thing twice. Step two is the application of specialized, temporary but powerful guerrilla politics while we try to figure out what Step 3 ought to be. Just don't underestimate the power of step one in large numbers.
  - diabeticApe 6y ago
    Well my suggestion is that instead of waiting around and crossing our fingers that everything will work out, we just figure step 3. Because otherwise someone else will and they probably wont give two shits about any of us if it interferes with thier incentives.
    - coretx 6y ago
      If you figured out step 3 and still think that a more swift party could have rendered you susceptible to the threat described, it is highly likely step 3 in fact was not really figured out while probably failing to incorporate step one while being at it. Although this has been written somewhat frivolously I did not make a joke when trying to convey the importance of Not repeating the cycle. But if some choose to not heed this warning, please let them setup a political party diametrically opposing what they desire only to sabotage the very same party covertly. Or as Lenin once said, the best way to deal with opposition is to lead it. This way at least some of your energy will lead to results.