4 ms·
I think open and transparent science is really important if we want to adopt evidence based policies in a democratic society. However, when it comes to law I d
by rsfern 5y ago
I think open and transparent science is really important if we want to adopt evidence based policies in a democratic society.
However, when it comes to law I don’t think there really is a “what science says it should be”. We can use the scientific method and evidence based reasoning to assess the likely outcome of any law or policy change, but figuring out what outcomes were as society are willing to accept given all the reasons trade offs is not a scientific question.
Unfortunately I’m not sure just having open and transparent science will be enough when so many seem uninterested in having a good faith conversation about the evidence and its implications
- AmericanChopper 5y agoI don’t think there is either. It ignores the fundamentally solipsistic nature of “the truth”, and perhaps more importantly the fact that science can’t tell you what values to have, or what concerns to prioritize. It’s a methodology for refining knowledge, not designing a society. But in the realm of governance, science is frequently used (or perhaps abused) as an unassailable authority to justify a wide variety of policy positions. I generally consider this to be a governance anti-pattern, but so long as science is being used to justify technocratic policy, it should be available for all of us to make our own judgements about.