3 ms·

Political “science” can help you understand politics, but it can’t endow you with an expert opinion on which policies to implement. Prioritising or selecting po

Political “science” can help you understand politics, but it can’t endow you with an expert opinion on which policies to implement. Prioritising or selecting policy agendas is largely an exercise in choosing what to value, and there is no scientifically correct perspective on human values. Also, if you want to implement a democratic process, then the goals of your policies should be to align with what people want, even if you think people want stupid things. All other forms of government are authoritarian, including technocracies run by “experts”.

mpalczewski 5y ago
I don't get it. In what sense does it help you understand? Is it just that you can tell a story(non-predictive) about what has happened?
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  Understanding how political systems operate and how they’re structured is firmly within the capabilities of political science. Understanding broad political philosophies can help you better understand any individual policy, and political science can help you understand the types of outcomes a policy is _likely_ to achieve or fail to achieve. But as a science, it’s not robust enough to make especially reliable predictions, and while understanding mainstream or even fringe political philosophies can be valuable, it is beyond the remit of science to tell you what the “correct” expectations are to have of government and society in general. Because that entirely depends on personal values.
  - mpalczewski 5y ago
    How does it validate that the understanding is correct?
    - AmericanChopper 5y ago
      Understanding the structure of government is largely a matter of understanding law and formal procedure. This understanding can be validated by decisions that courts make when resolving controversies relating to that structure. Validating an understanding of political philosophy cannot be done scientifically, which is the same for all areas of philosophy. Validating an understanding of the outcomes produced by certain kinds of policy can be approached somewhat scientifically, but you’re never going to derive reliable predictions, or conclusions that are widely agreed upon. Which is the same issue that all scientific research of human behavior encounters, in this case further complicated by the fact that the domain is the entirety of human civilization.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Prioritising or selecting policy agendas is largely an exercise in choosing what to value, and there is no scientifically correct perspective on human values. > the goals of your policies should be to align with what people want, even if you think people want stupid things. All other forms of government are authoritarian, including technocracies run by “experts”. Great points overall, though I think it shades too much toward making all values and preferences equal and relative. Some values and preferences are superior - that's objectively, philosphically, unprovable, maybe (or maybe not), but we are living and acting in reality. We don't need absolute mathematical proof to make a sound judgment, or we'd all be paralyzed. Also, providing what people want is complicated. First, many elect you to serve as representative, not mouthpiece. The rep is supposed to spend time figuring out issues and deciding the best course of action - I have my own job to do. In this respect I want the rep to do what I would do if I had all the information. Second, as any consultant quickly learns, what people say they want now is not what they later remember or say they want, and what they articulate is not exactly what they feel or think. It's your job to deliver what they really want in the appropriate timespan (often in the long term). If I told my client 'I knew this solution would suck but you said you wanted it' they would fire me immediately. It's my job to lead them away from folly; I'm the expert; that's why they pay me. Finally, people sometimes want evil things. That's why we have universal human rights and limited government - to prevent the majority from doing bad things to the minority. All of us, especially political leaders, have a job to help each other with our human folly.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  I think a lot of politicians have this perspective, and I think it’s condescending and anti-democratic. “People make bad decisions” (according to my own personal judgement of good decision making, of course) is a very week criticism of democracy. Aside from being a subjective assessment to begin with, it is always used as an excuse for some type of authoritarian policy. In a democracy a politician should be able to articulate their policy agenda, and then be trusted to actually try and implement it. In reality such a process is always going to be mired by errors, and inefficiency, and corruption. But to say “well my politician surely knows what’s best for me, they will protect me from my human folly” is just to excuse the intentional erosion of democratic principles. I also don’t think universal human rights are a thing that exists in any real form. I don’t believe there is a person anywhere in the world who has a single human right that their government couldn’t deprive them of if it chose to, and I think the perspective your describing is at least partly responsible for that. Governments only ever deprive people of their human rights for reasons they claim are for the benefit of society. The patriot act, and our secret FISA courts, and the laundry list of other tyrannies exist for no reason other than to “protect us”.

mpalczewski 5y ago

I don't get it. In what sense does it help you understand? Is it just that you can tell a story(non-predictive) about what has happened?

AmericanChopper 5y ago
Understanding how political systems operate and how they’re structured is firmly within the capabilities of political science. Understanding broad political philosophies can help you better understand any individual policy, and political science can help you understand the types of outcomes a policy is _likely_ to achieve or fail to achieve. But as a science, it’s not robust enough to make especially reliable predictions, and while understanding mainstream or even fringe political philosophies can be valuable, it is beyond the remit of science to tell you what the “correct” expectations are to have of government and society in general. Because that entirely depends on personal values.
- mpalczewski 5y ago
  How does it validate that the understanding is correct?
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    Understanding the structure of government is largely a matter of understanding law and formal procedure. This understanding can be validated by decisions that courts make when resolving controversies relating to that structure. Validating an understanding of political philosophy cannot be done scientifically, which is the same for all areas of philosophy. Validating an understanding of the outcomes produced by certain kinds of policy can be approached somewhat scientifically, but you’re never going to derive reliable predictions, or conclusions that are widely agreed upon. Which is the same issue that all scientific research of human behavior encounters, in this case further complicated by the fact that the domain is the entirety of human civilization.

wolverine876 5y ago

> Prioritising or selecting policy agendas is largely an exercise in choosing what to value, and there is no scientifically correct perspective on human values. > the goals of your policies should be to align with what people want, even if you think people want stupid things. All other forms of government are authoritarian, including technocracies run by “experts”. Great points overall, though I think it shades too much toward making all values and preferences equal and relative. Some values and preferences are superior - that's objectively, philosphically, unprovable, maybe (or maybe not), but we are living and acting in reality. We don't need absolute mathematical proof to make a sound judgment, or we'd all be paralyzed. Also, providing what people want is complicated. First, many elect you to serve as representative, not mouthpiece. The rep is supposed to spend time figuring out issues and deciding the best course of action - I have my own job to do. In this respect I want the rep to do what I would do if I had all the information. Second, as any consultant quickly learns, what people say they want now is not what they later remember or say they want, and what they articulate is not exactly what they feel or think. It's your job to deliver what they really want in the appropriate timespan (often in the long term). If I told my client 'I knew this solution would suck but you said you wanted it' they would fire me immediately. It's my job to lead them away from folly; I'm the expert; that's why they pay me. Finally, people sometimes want evil things. That's why we have universal human rights and limited government - to prevent the majority from doing bad things to the minority. All of us, especially political leaders, have a job to help each other with our human folly.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
I think a lot of politicians have this perspective, and I think it’s condescending and anti-democratic. “People make bad decisions” (according to my own personal judgement of good decision making, of course) is a very week criticism of democracy. Aside from being a subjective assessment to begin with, it is always used as an excuse for some type of authoritarian policy. In a democracy a politician should be able to articulate their policy agenda, and then be trusted to actually try and implement it. In reality such a process is always going to be mired by errors, and inefficiency, and corruption. But to say “well my politician surely knows what’s best for me, they will protect me from my human folly” is just to excuse the intentional erosion of democratic principles. I also don’t think universal human rights are a thing that exists in any real form. I don’t believe there is a person anywhere in the world who has a single human right that their government couldn’t deprive them of if it chose to, and I think the perspective your describing is at least partly responsible for that. Governments only ever deprive people of their human rights for reasons they claim are for the benefit of society. The patriot act, and our secret FISA courts, and the laundry list of other tyrannies exist for no reason other than to “protect us”.