3 ms·

> Well the purpose of public policy is to serve the will and preferences of the people, so I’d suggest we should rely on our democratic processes to have the fi

> Well the purpose of public policy is to serve the will and preferences of the people, so I’d suggest we should rely on our democratic processes to have the final say on all matters of public policy. Policy in the U.S is decided through democracy. But that begs the question, how should voters decide how to vote? Unless your belief is that vibes are valid, then it should be science. > This is complete nonsense... And it seems like that is your position. If you think there is widespread systemic error in science, I got bad news for you about vibes. > This is also nonsense. Public discussions on science are extensively gatekept to only allowing the views of “the experts” and people who agree with “the experts”. A non-expert challenging the claims made by an expert is misinformation, and should be fact-checked and flagged with a disclaimer, or removed from the discussion entirely. Have you considered that people get fact checked because they say some wild things without good evidence? Do you not care that people can just make things up?

AmericanChopper 3y ago
> how should voters decide how to vote? Unless your belief is that vibes are valid, then it should be science. The questions raised by most political platforms are answered by personal values or personal preferences. These are completely inaccessible to the scientific method, and I doubt you or anybody else takes a scientific approach to voting. > Have you considered that people get fact checked because they say some wild things without good evidence? Scientists routinely do this too. The main difference being it’s only socially acceptable to scrutinise somebody if they’re not being venerated as an unassailable expert.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  >The questions raised by most political platforms are answered by personal values or personal preferences. The democratic and republican parties makes a big deal about health care, housing, taxes, foreign policy, etc. These are also top issues for voters. >These are completely inaccessible to the scientific method, and I doubt you or anybody else takes a scientific approach to voting. They can, and they should. If you have a personal opinion on the tax rate, you shouldn't pull that tax rate out of your ass. If you have a preference for a tax rate, you should inform yourself on the matter. >Scientists routinely do this too. The main difference being it’s only socially acceptable to scrutinise somebody if they’re not being venerated as an unassailable expert. Now you've entered conspiracy theory land again. People routinely scrutinize scientists.

AmericanChopper 3y ago

> how should voters decide how to vote? Unless your belief is that vibes are valid, then it should be science. The questions raised by most political platforms are answered by personal values or personal preferences. These are completely inaccessible to the scientific method, and I doubt you or anybody else takes a scientific approach to voting. > Have you considered that people get fact checked because they say some wild things without good evidence? Scientists routinely do this too. The main difference being it’s only socially acceptable to scrutinise somebody if they’re not being venerated as an unassailable expert.

zeroCalories 3y ago
>The questions raised by most political platforms are answered by personal values or personal preferences. The democratic and republican parties makes a big deal about health care, housing, taxes, foreign policy, etc. These are also top issues for voters. >These are completely inaccessible to the scientific method, and I doubt you or anybody else takes a scientific approach to voting. They can, and they should. If you have a personal opinion on the tax rate, you shouldn't pull that tax rate out of your ass. If you have a preference for a tax rate, you should inform yourself on the matter. >Scientists routinely do this too. The main difference being it’s only socially acceptable to scrutinise somebody if they’re not being venerated as an unassailable expert. Now you've entered conspiracy theory land again. People routinely scrutinize scientists.