2 ms·

This is the fundamental problem with "evidence led policy". As soon as science can reliably affect policy outcomes, people who want to change policy outcomes w

This is the fundamental problem with "evidence led policy". As soon as science can reliably affect policy outcomes, people who want to change policy outcomes will corrupt the science.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
It won't matter. Eventually the governments who support technology will win - either via war or economic advantage.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  How is that not mattering? So if China uses science and the US descends further into hyper-partisan culture war, that doesn't matter? It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    My point was that eventually the anti-science policymakers will eventually lose out. Societies that value technology and science will win in the end - they will have economic advantages and advantages in war. > It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship. This is irrelevant to the conversation, but yes that is why we spend trillions on defense technology, so that if it comes to blows we don't lose out.
ufmace 6y ago
Yup this. In much the same way as things like judging the productivity of software developers by the number of lines of code they write. It sounds like a good idea to the inexperienced, and it may even seem sort of true if you look at it in the right way. But we all know, as soon as you try to make consequential decisions based on it, it will immediately be gamed and not true anymore.
- sriku 6y ago
  You raise an interesting hypothesis - that all interactions between science and policy making is subject to Goodhart's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law). In as much as science deals with things that cannot be affected by policy (ex: stellar physics or nuclear fusion), the "law" doesn't apply I think, except maybe in perception (people may believe that a particular nuclear fusion technique doesn't work even though it's been demonstrated but policy forbade it to be implemented). For some cases, we would want Goodhart's law to apply - ex: climate change. We'd want actions to be taken to reduce the impact on the planet as we gather and report climate parameters accurately. Similarly, we'd want accurate reporting of gender discrimination in society to result in the reduction of such discrimination. The question really is the way the change is effected. If "salary difference" is an indicator of gender discrimination for example, law makers can pass laws that fix it, thereby removing its effectiveness as an indicator .. but we're happy for even that at some level. That would be similar to a government sending teams to re-freeze melting glaciers because climate scientists are using it as an indicator of global warming. True policy thinkers, though, would want to ask the "five whys" and work to fix the underlying problem.

This is the fundamental problem with "evidence led policy". As soon as science can reliably affect policy outcomes, people who want to change policy outcomes will corrupt the science.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

It won't matter. Eventually the governments who support technology will win - either via war or economic advantage.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
How is that not mattering? So if China uses science and the US descends further into hyper-partisan culture war, that doesn't matter? It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  My point was that eventually the anti-science policymakers will eventually lose out. Societies that value technology and science will win in the end - they will have economic advantages and advantages in war. > It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship. This is irrelevant to the conversation, but yes that is why we spend trillions on defense technology, so that if it comes to blows we don't lose out.

ufmace 6y ago

Yup this. In much the same way as things like judging the productivity of software developers by the number of lines of code they write. It sounds like a good idea to the inexperienced, and it may even seem sort of true if you look at it in the right way. But we all know, as soon as you try to make consequential decisions based on it, it will immediately be gamed and not true anymore.

sriku 6y ago
You raise an interesting hypothesis - that all interactions between science and policy making is subject to Goodhart's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law). In as much as science deals with things that cannot be affected by policy (ex: stellar physics or nuclear fusion), the "law" doesn't apply I think, except maybe in perception (people may believe that a particular nuclear fusion technique doesn't work even though it's been demonstrated but policy forbade it to be implemented). For some cases, we would want Goodhart's law to apply - ex: climate change. We'd want actions to be taken to reduce the impact on the planet as we gather and report climate parameters accurately. Similarly, we'd want accurate reporting of gender discrimination in society to result in the reduction of such discrimination. The question really is the way the change is effected. If "salary difference" is an indicator of gender discrimination for example, law makers can pass laws that fix it, thereby removing its effectiveness as an indicator .. but we're happy for even that at some level. That would be similar to a government sending teams to re-freeze melting glaciers because climate scientists are using it as an indicator of global warming. True policy thinkers, though, would want to ask the "five whys" and work to fix the underlying problem.