> My view is, accurate information should be the basis of all decision making, and the only way humans have found to come up with accurate information (about th

> My view is, accurate information should be the basis of all decision making, and the only way humans have found to come up with accurate information (about things like risks of global warming, causes of disease, etc.) is the rational scientific process, so that's what we should be spending our time and energy on developing, more than anything else. While I agree in the importance of the scientific process, I disagree with the rationale. Accurate information should be the basis of decision making, but it can't make the decision. Deciding requires values, requires knowing "what is good". Science can tell us exactly where we are and how we got here, but it can't tell us why we're here. Science can tell us the range of outcomes if we do or do not stop carbon emissions, but it can't tell us whether or not we should. That's a moral decision. And that's why (in my value system) it's important to have some people devoting themselves to the creation of art, literature, music, architecture, etc. By exploring the ranges of human emotion, and by learning how we emotionally respond to various tragic, comedic, or romantic scenarios, we can better understand our own values on which to found our decision making. Informed, of course, by scientifically accurate information.