3 ms·

What of political science? Sociology? Immunology? Virology? Epidemiology? These are all performed by humans. And yes, the risk vs the reward is an inheren

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.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      Do you get that there are people who vehemently disagree with you? Who look on scientists with contempt?
      - jjcon 4y ago
        Yes? Again though what does that have to do with the topic here?

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.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    Do you get that there are people who vehemently disagree with you? Who look on scientists with contempt?
    - jjcon 4y ago
      Yes? Again though what does that have to do with the topic here?