5 ms·

This is why those we elect should never be involved in science. It was never supposed to be the role of government. The expectation that those we elect should

This is why those we elect should never be involved in science. It was never supposed to be the role of government. The expectation that those we elect should be knowledgeable over the entire domain of knowledge that represents important things we care about is unreasonable and is why they always fail our expectations. Instead, the domain of their responsibility should be very limited as to not impact everything in our lives.

slver 5y ago
Those we elect are not “involved in science”. Still you’re supposed to have higher bar for representatives, instead of saying “representatives are dumb”. You realize this essentially says those being represented are also dumb. Or there is a systemic flaw to address
- 13years 5y ago
  Government is involved in science everywhere. Through both policy and investments. Everyone always points out how some politician has failed to understand some aspect of technology or some particular deep domain of knowledge. This problem is never going to get better because it isn't feasible that those who spend their lives mostly trying to understand how to campaign and influence you to vote for them are going to deeply understand anything about complicated subjects of the world. It is the entire reason the original role of government was essentially to protect your liberties. Not decide how you should live your life or what is true or false in the realm of deep fields of knowledge.
crazydoggers 5y ago
How can we limit the domain of their responsibility so severely? Take climate change. Ultimately we need elected officials to enforce regulations. If we limit their ability to do so, then you’ll have a power vacuum, and those with the most money power and influence will be making the rules... again with science losing. I don’t think we need to expect them to have expertise in every field. Instead even basic critical thinking skills, basic ability to asses scientific method vs pseudoscience. I feel like that should be a low bar to hit.
- 13years 5y ago
  And yet, when they get involved it completely distorts what is known. https://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-climate-change.html https://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-c...
  - crazydoggers 5y ago
    Well yes, because we’ve chosen poorly, and the bar is so low on basic scientific knowledge in this country. So then how do you combat climate change? Why would those making billions to pollute the environment care about science if we don’t elect officials who can enforce regulation. At least now we have some pull and some percentage of elected officials making rational decisions. Without even that, what do we have? And back to the article at hand. Elected officials need to be at least in charge of military response I would assume you would agree. Is it not best that they can understand it’s not an alien or “commy” conspiracy when they make decisions?
    - 13years 5y ago
      Before regulations, pollution was solved by strict property rights enforcement. Courts eventually stopped enforcing property rights because it allowed for zero pollution. Regulation agencies were created to allow pollution, but in a manner that would be acceptable to balance business needs. In effect, regulations have only outsourced the creation of pollution to elsewhere. How much better have we actually gotten vs just making the optics look better? However, ironically if politics weren't involved, there might actually be more universal public opposition and pressure on companies as before political involvement in climate change the belief in climate change was about equal among left and right. Military response should require an act of congress which requires debate and discussion which should also involve the public. Congress has given up its role in this endeavor to the executive branch, but that is how it is supposed to be. With more open debate and discussion at least your more likely to stay within the realm of rational.
      - crazydoggers 5y ago

slver 5y ago

Those we elect are not “involved in science”. Still you’re supposed to have higher bar for representatives, instead of saying “representatives are dumb”. You realize this essentially says those being represented are also dumb. Or there is a systemic flaw to address

13years 5y ago
Government is involved in science everywhere. Through both policy and investments. Everyone always points out how some politician has failed to understand some aspect of technology or some particular deep domain of knowledge. This problem is never going to get better because it isn't feasible that those who spend their lives mostly trying to understand how to campaign and influence you to vote for them are going to deeply understand anything about complicated subjects of the world. It is the entire reason the original role of government was essentially to protect your liberties. Not decide how you should live your life or what is true or false in the realm of deep fields of knowledge.

crazydoggers 5y ago

How can we limit the domain of their responsibility so severely? Take climate change. Ultimately we need elected officials to enforce regulations. If we limit their ability to do so, then you’ll have a power vacuum, and those with the most money power and influence will be making the rules... again with science losing. I don’t think we need to expect them to have expertise in every field. Instead even basic critical thinking skills, basic ability to asses scientific method vs pseudoscience. I feel like that should be a low bar to hit.

13years 5y ago
And yet, when they get involved it completely distorts what is known. https://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-climate-change.html https://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-c...
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  Well yes, because we’ve chosen poorly, and the bar is so low on basic scientific knowledge in this country. So then how do you combat climate change? Why would those making billions to pollute the environment care about science if we don’t elect officials who can enforce regulation. At least now we have some pull and some percentage of elected officials making rational decisions. Without even that, what do we have? And back to the article at hand. Elected officials need to be at least in charge of military response I would assume you would agree. Is it not best that they can understand it’s not an alien or “commy” conspiracy when they make decisions?
  - 13years 5y ago
    Before regulations, pollution was solved by strict property rights enforcement. Courts eventually stopped enforcing property rights because it allowed for zero pollution. Regulation agencies were created to allow pollution, but in a manner that would be acceptable to balance business needs. In effect, regulations have only outsourced the creation of pollution to elsewhere. How much better have we actually gotten vs just making the optics look better? However, ironically if politics weren't involved, there might actually be more universal public opposition and pressure on companies as before political involvement in climate change the belief in climate change was about equal among left and right. Military response should require an act of congress which requires debate and discussion which should also involve the public. Congress has given up its role in this endeavor to the executive branch, but that is how it is supposed to be. With more open debate and discussion at least your more likely to stay within the realm of rational.
    - crazydoggers 5y ago