3 ms·

Politics should be informed by science. How should we govern ourselves? By understanding the world. Forming theories and testing them. Developing models tha

Politics should be informed by science. How should we govern ourselves? By understanding the world. Forming theories and testing them. Developing models that can predict the future. Peer review. Following the data where it leads us. Controlling for variables. And on and on and on. Said another way - there are people who are actively fighting a scientific understanding of the world, in declaring how we should govern ourselves. Please, be careful to not sound like you're on their side. Because they're so painfully wrong.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
autoexec 4y ago
Exactly. The twisting of the truth by polluting bodies of research is extremely dangerous. The consequences of falsifying scientific data, either for money or ideological reasons should be harsh. As a child I thought that no scientist would ever do that because it would ruin their reputation and they'd never work in their field again. Instead industries are happy to keep scientists in their back pockets and nobody seems to have problems with 'science by press conference' or with taking industry funding for research knowing the results will never see the light of day if they are unfavorable to that industries profits. Science has the ability to self-correct and get to the truth, but that takes time and money and the ones with the most money are more interested in pushing whatever lies are needed to preserve their power.
jjcon 4y ago
> Politics should be informed by science. Informed by science, absolutely. I think the point here though is that science is inherently amoral (meaning without judgement). For a mundane non-political example, Science may say: If we ban skiing the outcome will be fewer people dying in accidents. It takes a politician to assess the effects of making that decision in the context of societal values (freedom, privacy etc). Science should not be prescriptive, only descriptive. It cannot weigh its descriptions against the values of a society or people.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  What of political science? Sociology? Immunology? Virology? Epidemiology? These are all performed by humans. And yes, the risk vs the reward is an inherently political discussion, but science is performed by scientists and they are welcome to say, "the model says if we do X, then Y will happen, and I think we should avoid that at all costs."
  - jjcon 4y ago
    What about them? Sure a scientist is welcome to have their own opinion based on the scientific facts in a particular matter and they can vote just like everyone else because again, the science itself is only descriptive. Maybe I should have gone for a more direct metaphor. An epidemiologist may say - if we institute martial law we can cut Covid deaths by X. Most in society would not make that trade, some would. Knowing the facts in a matter is vital but the society makes that judgement call (via representatives in a representative democracy), not science, not scientists (except inasmuch as they participate in the democracy).
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      How should our representatives try to form an informed understanding about the world around them, and make predictions about the consequences of various courses of action? Should representatives pay particular attention to scientists? If all else were equal, and one candidate said scientists cannot be trusted, and the other one said we should look to science to guide us, which candidate would you rather vote for?
      - jjcon 4y ago
        I’m not sure how any of your questions are relevant to the current discussion (or they should already seem obvious) but I’ll answer them anyway. My point isn’t to diminish the role of science, only to point out that science is again inherently descriptive, not prescriptive. > How should our representatives try to form an informed understanding about the world around them, and make predictions about the consequences of various courses of action? Through science > Should representatives pay particular attention to scientists? Certainly, my first comment was that politics should absolutely be informed by science. > If all else were equal, and one candidate said scientists cannot be trusted, and the other one said we should look to science to guide us, which candidate would you rather vote for? The latter obviously.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

autoexec 4y ago

Exactly. The twisting of the truth by polluting bodies of research is extremely dangerous. The consequences of falsifying scientific data, either for money or ideological reasons should be harsh. As a child I thought that no scientist would ever do that because it would ruin their reputation and they'd never work in their field again. Instead industries are happy to keep scientists in their back pockets and nobody seems to have problems with 'science by press conference' or with taking industry funding for research knowing the results will never see the light of day if they are unfavorable to that industries profits. Science has the ability to self-correct and get to the truth, but that takes time and money and the ones with the most money are more interested in pushing whatever lies are needed to preserve their power.

jjcon 4y ago

> Politics should be informed by science. Informed by science, absolutely. I think the point here though is that science is inherently amoral (meaning without judgement). For a mundane non-political example, Science may say: If we ban skiing the outcome will be fewer people dying in accidents. It takes a politician to assess the effects of making that decision in the context of societal values (freedom, privacy etc). Science should not be prescriptive, only descriptive. It cannot weigh its descriptions against the values of a society or people.

VikingCoder 4y ago
What of political science? Sociology? Immunology? Virology? Epidemiology? These are all performed by humans. And yes, the risk vs the reward is an inherently political discussion, but science is performed by scientists and they are welcome to say, "the model says if we do X, then Y will happen, and I think we should avoid that at all costs."
- jjcon 4y ago
  What about them? Sure a scientist is welcome to have their own opinion based on the scientific facts in a particular matter and they can vote just like everyone else because again, the science itself is only descriptive. Maybe I should have gone for a more direct metaphor. An epidemiologist may say - if we institute martial law we can cut Covid deaths by X. Most in society would not make that trade, some would. Knowing the facts in a matter is vital but the society makes that judgement call (via representatives in a representative democracy), not science, not scientists (except inasmuch as they participate in the democracy).
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    How should our representatives try to form an informed understanding about the world around them, and make predictions about the consequences of various courses of action? Should representatives pay particular attention to scientists? If all else were equal, and one candidate said scientists cannot be trusted, and the other one said we should look to science to guide us, which candidate would you rather vote for?
    - jjcon 4y ago
      I’m not sure how any of your questions are relevant to the current discussion (or they should already seem obvious) but I’ll answer them anyway. My point isn’t to diminish the role of science, only to point out that science is again inherently descriptive, not prescriptive. > How should our representatives try to form an informed understanding about the world around them, and make predictions about the consequences of various courses of action? Through science > Should representatives pay particular attention to scientists? Certainly, my first comment was that politics should absolutely be informed by science. > If all else were equal, and one candidate said scientists cannot be trusted, and the other one said we should look to science to guide us, which candidate would you rather vote for? The latter obviously.