5 ms·

Politics is increasingly driven by "studies" and calls to authority of assumed experts. "Listen to the scientists" is the demand by modern authoritarians, while

Politics is increasingly driven by "studies" and calls to authority of assumed experts. "Listen to the scientists" is the demand by modern authoritarians, while huge chunks of science have a reproducibility issue, among other issues plaguing the system. A good foundation in understanding scientific claims and evaluating proofs seems essential in such times. Maths is an essential part of that.

trashtester 4y ago
I agreee. If we want to keep democracy, the kids need to learn more math and science.
- Koshkin 4y ago
  The math and science education was very good in the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It is very good in China. Rather, as the US Constitution has bluntly put it, if we want to keep democracy, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The above examples seem to support this.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    I agree with you that an armed populace is one factor that supports democracy In fact, I believe that the invention of firearms democratized military might by making the professional soldier (knight, man-at-arms or Swiss style mercernary) obsolete. In a time where military might was determined by how many men could be drafted into service, a government could only retain power through the support of those drafted men. A rule by "all drafted men", in other words, is the foundation of democracy. Like most societies, a democracy is rule by the predominant warrior caste. In the greek democracies, all male citizens were serving as hoplites. That was teh basis for their "democracy". The Roman republic had legions of citizens (until Marius), enabling another form of citizen rule. Then came the Marian reforms, with professional soldiers controlled by the elite. Almost directly after, Sulla, Caesar and Octavian introduced the Roman Empire. 500 years later, the Romans in Western Europe were overrun by Germanic chiefs. Their elite soldiers became the armored knights of the Medieval Europe, and they introduced Feudalism, where power was held by the nobility (and sometimes shared with a king, who was often quite weak). Then came the age of the pike armed Swiss mercenaries and similar non-noble military formations more similar to the legions of Imperial Rome. This gave many European monarchs full controls. The founding fathers saw this, and rightly predicted that armed citizens was an ingredient in ensuring governance by the people. In Europe it would take another 150 years or so for this to play out. Many on the left will not realize this. They think that democracy is self-sustaining regardless of potential for the elites to be corrupted and sieze the power. The founding fathers had studied their history. They knew about Marius and Sulla and how the Roman elites quickly had taken control once the citizens were no longer the backbone of the army. The founding fathers were not "common people", but rather highly educated members of the elites. Their existence had been made possible by a monarchical system, and they bore many similarities with the elites of the Roman empire (the senators). The guns may give the power to rule, but not the wisdom, and people like Thomas Jefferson understood this. And this is where the understanding of the populist right falls short. Thomas Jefferson in particular was a proponent of quality education for the citizenry, he thought that "no other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness". In other words, not only guns but also books were needed to keep the people free (and happy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_education When citizens completely lose the ability to understand the world in which they live. He promoted the teaching of "Science and Virtue", but was concerned about intellectuals from "tyrannies" in Europe. Maybe he anticipated something like the Frankfurt School? The only way to prevent demagogues (like Ceasar) who promise to people that which is impossible to deliver, is to: 1) Make sure the people know enough Science to be able to know the possible from the impossible. 2) Make sure people know enough history to recognize what values are true Virtues that lead to healthy societies, and which are hollow lies, more suitable for use by would-be-dictators to gain control.
    - zoolily 4y ago
      Since military might no longer rests on large conscripted forces and once again is based on small professional forces with expensive equipment, where does that leave democracy?
      - trashtester 4y ago
        Many countries still have conscripted forces, at least on paper. Others have "armed militias" during times of relative peace. Robust institutions may also hold out better than Rome of ~100BC. But I do hold the concern you hint at, and with an increasing tendency towards fewer, more expensive and soon maybe automated weapons platforms, the risk may increase of some kind of move towards some alternative system. (Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Theocracy, Autocracy, etc) Which is why I (who used to be too liberterian to like the idea of a forced draft) now support a system based on the draft, simply because of the stability it provides. But if and when the most effective type of military once again becomes wieldable by a small minority, it will become harder and harder to prevent a shift.
    - mike00632 4y ago
      You have got the Second Amendment backwards. The idea that a well-regulated militia could bear arms was supposed to be a counterbalance to the new federal government. It was about the states having recourse if they didn't like democracy. It was about ensuring the failure of the United States similar to how the Articles of Confederation failed, that power wasn't too centralized. The Second Amendment was about states' rights to maintain militias that could fight democracy; this was especially relevant to slave states that weren't fully on board with representative democracy. The Civil War was the ultimate aim of the Second Amendment. State militias banded together to fight the United States. It was never about ensuring democracy. The interpretation that the Second Amendment is about enabling individuals to protect their personal interests with guns is very new. And this idea that the Second Amendment is supposed to be about guns maintaining democracy is a perversion of even that. Coercion via the threat of violence from random, unelected strangers doesn't feel very 'democratic' to me.
      - 4y ago
  - misslibby 4y ago
    They also had a lot of pseudo science going on in Nazi Germany. I don't claim simply learning maths is sufficient - I mean math in the form of what is a proof, statistical reasoning, things like that. In general I don't think we ever even looked at a paper or "study" and tried to find tell-tale signs of bad science. That should change.

trashtester 4y ago

I agreee. If we want to keep democracy, the kids need to learn more math and science.

Koshkin 4y ago
The math and science education was very good in the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It is very good in China. Rather, as the US Constitution has bluntly put it, if we want to keep democracy, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The above examples seem to support this.
- trashtester 4y ago
  I agree with you that an armed populace is one factor that supports democracy In fact, I believe that the invention of firearms democratized military might by making the professional soldier (knight, man-at-arms or Swiss style mercernary) obsolete. In a time where military might was determined by how many men could be drafted into service, a government could only retain power through the support of those drafted men. A rule by "all drafted men", in other words, is the foundation of democracy. Like most societies, a democracy is rule by the predominant warrior caste. In the greek democracies, all male citizens were serving as hoplites. That was teh basis for their "democracy". The Roman republic had legions of citizens (until Marius), enabling another form of citizen rule. Then came the Marian reforms, with professional soldiers controlled by the elite. Almost directly after, Sulla, Caesar and Octavian introduced the Roman Empire. 500 years later, the Romans in Western Europe were overrun by Germanic chiefs. Their elite soldiers became the armored knights of the Medieval Europe, and they introduced Feudalism, where power was held by the nobility (and sometimes shared with a king, who was often quite weak). Then came the age of the pike armed Swiss mercenaries and similar non-noble military formations more similar to the legions of Imperial Rome. This gave many European monarchs full controls. The founding fathers saw this, and rightly predicted that armed citizens was an ingredient in ensuring governance by the people. In Europe it would take another 150 years or so for this to play out. Many on the left will not realize this. They think that democracy is self-sustaining regardless of potential for the elites to be corrupted and sieze the power. The founding fathers had studied their history. They knew about Marius and Sulla and how the Roman elites quickly had taken control once the citizens were no longer the backbone of the army. The founding fathers were not "common people", but rather highly educated members of the elites. Their existence had been made possible by a monarchical system, and they bore many similarities with the elites of the Roman empire (the senators). The guns may give the power to rule, but not the wisdom, and people like Thomas Jefferson understood this. And this is where the understanding of the populist right falls short. Thomas Jefferson in particular was a proponent of quality education for the citizenry, he thought that "no other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness". In other words, not only guns but also books were needed to keep the people free (and happy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_education When citizens completely lose the ability to understand the world in which they live. He promoted the teaching of "Science and Virtue", but was concerned about intellectuals from "tyrannies" in Europe. Maybe he anticipated something like the Frankfurt School? The only way to prevent demagogues (like Ceasar) who promise to people that which is impossible to deliver, is to: 1) Make sure the people know enough Science to be able to know the possible from the impossible. 2) Make sure people know enough history to recognize what values are true Virtues that lead to healthy societies, and which are hollow lies, more suitable for use by would-be-dictators to gain control.
  - zoolily 4y ago
    Since military might no longer rests on large conscripted forces and once again is based on small professional forces with expensive equipment, where does that leave democracy?
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Many countries still have conscripted forces, at least on paper. Others have "armed militias" during times of relative peace. Robust institutions may also hold out better than Rome of ~100BC. But I do hold the concern you hint at, and with an increasing tendency towards fewer, more expensive and soon maybe automated weapons platforms, the risk may increase of some kind of move towards some alternative system. (Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Theocracy, Autocracy, etc) Which is why I (who used to be too liberterian to like the idea of a forced draft) now support a system based on the draft, simply because of the stability it provides. But if and when the most effective type of military once again becomes wieldable by a small minority, it will become harder and harder to prevent a shift.
  - mike00632 4y ago
    You have got the Second Amendment backwards. The idea that a well-regulated militia could bear arms was supposed to be a counterbalance to the new federal government. It was about the states having recourse if they didn't like democracy. It was about ensuring the failure of the United States similar to how the Articles of Confederation failed, that power wasn't too centralized. The Second Amendment was about states' rights to maintain militias that could fight democracy; this was especially relevant to slave states that weren't fully on board with representative democracy. The Civil War was the ultimate aim of the Second Amendment. State militias banded together to fight the United States. It was never about ensuring democracy. The interpretation that the Second Amendment is about enabling individuals to protect their personal interests with guns is very new. And this idea that the Second Amendment is supposed to be about guns maintaining democracy is a perversion of even that. Coercion via the threat of violence from random, unelected strangers doesn't feel very 'democratic' to me.
    - 4y ago
- misslibby 4y ago
  They also had a lot of pseudo science going on in Nazi Germany. I don't claim simply learning maths is sufficient - I mean math in the form of what is a proof, statistical reasoning, things like that. In general I don't think we ever even looked at a paper or "study" and tried to find tell-tale signs of bad science. That should change.