7 ms·

Firstly, to say any political belief is "scientifically accurate" is a gross misunderstanding of both science and political beliefs. Best definitions for both I

Firstly, to say any political belief is "scientifically accurate" is a gross misunderstanding of both science and political beliefs. Best definitions for both I have found are: -Science = the search for the best explanation given available information [1]. -Political belief = shared myths through which we agree society should be organized [2] Secondly, don't discount bias in science. Once a paradigm is established, good luck breaking it, especially for complex subjects. It usually takes decades (e.g., DNA is the genetic material, microbiomes are a thing, even relativity). A more appropriate framing to your statement is "The current paradigms trend what modern society considers left, providing the political lens throughout which researchers interpret their results. Therefore, this big statistical model we call an AI leans 'left'." [1] David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity [2] Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
Awesome calling it a "gross misunderstanding" and then using a book mostly considered fiction history as a source for the definition. (Sapiens is not highly regarded by anyone with a history background, its nice laymans reading though). I think you are ignoring the larger point he is making though. Lets say society agrees on "We want less crime". Scientifically we can make models of human behaviour, do analysis of what causes crime, what prevents it from becoming epidemic etc. We do have all that data. Poverty, lack of education and healthcare and punitive judiciary with little help for mental health and drug issues are the main causes. So if the left says "lets reduce poverty, do needle sharing programs, detox clinics, and defund the police in exchange for neighbourhood cops and mental health helpers at shelters and poorer schools" and the right says "lets give cops a tank and a more dangerous looking outfit". One is aligned with the scientific consensus on the solutions that would help, the other is just idealising violence as a solution to a complex problem. This is reproducible in other areas where there is social consensus on the problem (economy not growing, housing being expensive, cleaning the environment). Technocratic solutions aren't always the best and a number of opinions and plans are good, but it is quite crazy seeing people disregard solutions that work in every other country on the simple basis of ideology.
- onos 4y ago
  Don’t agree.. The rights main argument to reduce crime is to promote stable family units as stats consistently show that controlling for single motherhood, children of all races show similar rates of criminal activity. This is not popular with some on the left, which is generally committed to a view that people should be free to do what they want in their relationships. This is N example where the right is pursuing a view consistent with the data and the left is not. There are of course many examples going the other way.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    When it came to drug use in the “inner city” that was the right’s talking point. But when drug use started happening in “rural America” it was a “disease”. But one of the largest cause of the lack of the cohesive family unit is the “War on Drugs” that was statistically more harshly applied to minorities. But when it comes time for police reform and criminal Justice reform, the right bristles. Yes I know that the Clintons were the major architects of the tough on crime movement in the 90s.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    I think you are being a bit disingenious. I do not think anyone on the left is defending single motherhood as the best environment to raise children, specially when many of those single mothers do not do it by choice. Considering about 50% of black amle americans spend time in jail (most of which for drug offenses) and the drug war is a complete and utter failure, I would argue that the lefts proposed solutions of decriminisalising drugs like weed, and encouraging inner city rehab programms would have a better and faster return on investment to stop "single mothers" than "promote stable family units" which has no policy attached to it other than add more christianity in school. Thats just my view point.
    - onos 4y ago
      The drug war argument is compelling. If this is the main driver we have a pretty unpleasant trade off to consider: accept drug addiction which ruins lives or send people to jail which also ruins lives. Some drugs aren’t so bad so the trade off is not there. Definitely one suggestion from the right is promote their view of social morality, Christianity but also a la carte statements: no infidelity, no sex out of wedlock etc. Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. Ie however well motivated there is a potential harmful unintended consequence here.
baandam 4y ago
"my political views are backed by science" sounds like something straight out of late 1930s Germany.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

Awesome calling it a "gross misunderstanding" and then using a book mostly considered fiction history as a source for the definition. (Sapiens is not highly regarded by anyone with a history background, its nice laymans reading though). I think you are ignoring the larger point he is making though. Lets say society agrees on "We want less crime". Scientifically we can make models of human behaviour, do analysis of what causes crime, what prevents it from becoming epidemic etc. We do have all that data. Poverty, lack of education and healthcare and punitive judiciary with little help for mental health and drug issues are the main causes. So if the left says "lets reduce poverty, do needle sharing programs, detox clinics, and defund the police in exchange for neighbourhood cops and mental health helpers at shelters and poorer schools" and the right says "lets give cops a tank and a more dangerous looking outfit". One is aligned with the scientific consensus on the solutions that would help, the other is just idealising violence as a solution to a complex problem. This is reproducible in other areas where there is social consensus on the problem (economy not growing, housing being expensive, cleaning the environment). Technocratic solutions aren't always the best and a number of opinions and plans are good, but it is quite crazy seeing people disregard solutions that work in every other country on the simple basis of ideology.

onos 4y ago
Don’t agree.. The rights main argument to reduce crime is to promote stable family units as stats consistently show that controlling for single motherhood, children of all races show similar rates of criminal activity. This is not popular with some on the left, which is generally committed to a view that people should be free to do what they want in their relationships. This is N example where the right is pursuing a view consistent with the data and the left is not. There are of course many examples going the other way.
- scarface74 4y ago
  When it came to drug use in the “inner city” that was the right’s talking point. But when drug use started happening in “rural America” it was a “disease”. But one of the largest cause of the lack of the cohesive family unit is the “War on Drugs” that was statistically more harshly applied to minorities. But when it comes time for police reform and criminal Justice reform, the right bristles. Yes I know that the Clintons were the major architects of the tough on crime movement in the 90s.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  I think you are being a bit disingenious. I do not think anyone on the left is defending single motherhood as the best environment to raise children, specially when many of those single mothers do not do it by choice. Considering about 50% of black amle americans spend time in jail (most of which for drug offenses) and the drug war is a complete and utter failure, I would argue that the lefts proposed solutions of decriminisalising drugs like weed, and encouraging inner city rehab programms would have a better and faster return on investment to stop "single mothers" than "promote stable family units" which has no policy attached to it other than add more christianity in school. Thats just my view point.
  - onos 4y ago
    The drug war argument is compelling. If this is the main driver we have a pretty unpleasant trade off to consider: accept drug addiction which ruins lives or send people to jail which also ruins lives. Some drugs aren’t so bad so the trade off is not there. Definitely one suggestion from the right is promote their view of social morality, Christianity but also a la carte statements: no infidelity, no sex out of wedlock etc. Another of their arguments is that welfare payments from the state have made it easier for the poor to not stick together and this has been a driver of single parent households. Ie however well motivated there is a potential harmful unintended consequence here.

baandam 4y ago

"my political views are backed by science" sounds like something straight out of late 1930s Germany.