4 ms·

Science can only describe the physical world, it can't tell you what to do about it. The Nazis had plenty of highly placed scientists. Woodrow Wilson did too an

by uuilly 14y ago

Science can only describe the physical world, it can't tell you what to do about it. The Nazis had plenty of highly placed scientists. Woodrow Wilson did too and they were in favor of eugenics. The deification of science is a life raft post adolescents cling to as they try to swim away from the inherent corruption of mankind. Scientists are no less afflicted with selfishness, vanity or pettiness than people in any other industry. Striving toward scientific objectivity is a wonderful pursuit. So is striving toward the ideal of many religions. But practicing a religion does not make you god and practicing science does not make you science.

enraged_camel 14y ago
I don't think anyone is claiming that scientists are infallible godly beings. Rather, the article is pointing out that countries that elect scientists to their governments end up with significantly more scientific progress than governments that elect lawyers, poly sci majors, and business people.
quanticle 14y ago
That said, the old adage still holds: "You are entitled to hold your own opinions, but not to hold your own facts." That is something which is clearly not true in US politics. There are politicians in the US who profess publicly that the Earth is not warming, that the universe is only 6000 years old, and animals were designed by a divine creator. This has obvious public policy implications. It's hard to discuss possible adaptations or remedies for global warming when one side refuses to acknowledge that the phenomenon even exists. It's hard to talk about endangered species when one side thinks, "It's God's responsibility." It's hard to talk about the impact of tax changes when neither side has a coherent view of basic economics. It's true that scientists are no less afflicted by selfishness, vanity, or pettiness than people in any other industry. However, unlike people in other industries (especially law and politics), scientists and engineers have to deal with physical reality. They cannot make their problems go away through fancy rhetoric or canny argumentation. That reminder of physical reality beyond the niceties of law and legislation is one that's sorely lacking in our government today.
- 001sky 14y ago
  The reason is people are not so naive. In 20th C., affiliating your position with [Science] has often just been short hand for [Trust Me]. It has been a way to dress up mutton as lamb. Only a certain kind of person argues: I know the all the facts. I am 100% right. They are usually (1) people who do not know what they are talking about; or (2) people who [bracket] their scope of knowledge to the subset of things that [conform to their education/training/expertise], but then extrapolate further. And, everybody knows, politics covers a broader scope of ambition and emotion. Certainly, broader than what is taught [in XYZ school]. It covers hopes and dreams [mlk, ghandi]. As well as other more base instincts [20th century wars, etc]. So, there is no [expertise] in politics that is an academic credential. And to substitute an [academic] [science] credential and call it an [expertise] in politics is dressing up [mutton] and calling it [Lamb]. Its just short hand for [Trust Me]. And the reason people do not buy that? The reason is that people are not so naive.
nzmsv 14y ago
So to follow your argument, being a lawyer does not make one "law". Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws? :) Also: Godwin's law.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > So to follow your argument, being a lawyer does not make one "law". ...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? Of course being a lawyer doesn't make you "the law". > Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws? Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. It's important; it's relevant; it contributes to society in a positive and melioristic way. > Also: Godwin's law. Do you actually know what Godwin's Law states?
  - nzmsv 14y ago
    > ...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? No, it's not. I'm just poking fun at the parent post, specifically the "practicing science does not make you science" line. It just sounded like some bizarre variation of "you are (or not) what you eat" to me. > Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. I agree with this. Unfortunately, all too often people making laws about science know nothing about it, and end up setting discovery back. Ideally there would be someone in government whose critical thinking could balance out all the rhetoric. I'm not saying all lawyers should be replaced with scientists. > Do you actually know what Godwin's Law states? I have not yet been banned from Wikipedia. Re-read the comment I am replying to. He is arguing against putting scientists in government because the Nazis had scientists. It was a good trolling attempt though - look at us two go on about it :)
    - jstrate 14y ago
      >He is arguing against putting scientists in government because the Nazis had scientists. This doesn't comment does not merit a response, but no he is not.
starpilot 14y ago
I think about college and all the team projects. The best project lead I had was not necessarily the best at the material, but he was the most competent at delegating work, focusing the team, and moving things along. When he asked me to explain a concept he didn't understand, I didn't think less of him (short of major oversights). He was vastly more competent than I at managing the group though, and I didn't mind because it let me focus on the science. The best engineers/scientists do not necessarily make the best handlers of people. And any government lab or university engineering department has plenty of petty office politics, rife with enough absurdity that we have comics and movies about it.

by uuilly 14y ago

enraged_camel 14y ago

I don't think anyone is claiming that scientists are infallible godly beings. Rather, the article is pointing out that countries that elect scientists to their governments end up with significantly more scientific progress than governments that elect lawyers, poly sci majors, and business people.

quanticle 14y ago

That said, the old adage still holds: "You are entitled to hold your own opinions, but not to hold your own facts." That is something which is clearly not true in US politics. There are politicians in the US who profess publicly that the Earth is not warming, that the universe is only 6000 years old, and animals were designed by a divine creator. This has obvious public policy implications. It's hard to discuss possible adaptations or remedies for global warming when one side refuses to acknowledge that the phenomenon even exists. It's hard to talk about endangered species when one side thinks, "It's God's responsibility." It's hard to talk about the impact of tax changes when neither side has a coherent view of basic economics. It's true that scientists are no less afflicted by selfishness, vanity, or pettiness than people in any other industry. However, unlike people in other industries (especially law and politics), scientists and engineers have to deal with physical reality. They cannot make their problems go away through fancy rhetoric or canny argumentation. That reminder of physical reality beyond the niceties of law and legislation is one that's sorely lacking in our government today.

001sky 14y ago
The reason is people are not so naive. In 20th C., affiliating your position with [Science] has often just been short hand for [Trust Me]. It has been a way to dress up mutton as lamb. Only a certain kind of person argues: I know the all the facts. I am 100% right. They are usually (1) people who do not know what they are talking about; or (2) people who [bracket] their scope of knowledge to the subset of things that [conform to their education/training/expertise], but then extrapolate further. And, everybody knows, politics covers a broader scope of ambition and emotion. Certainly, broader than what is taught [in XYZ school]. It covers hopes and dreams [mlk, ghandi]. As well as other more base instincts [20th century wars, etc]. So, there is no [expertise] in politics that is an academic credential. And to substitute an [academic] [science] credential and call it an [expertise] in politics is dressing up [mutton] and calling it [Lamb]. Its just short hand for [Trust Me]. And the reason people do not buy that? The reason is that people are not so naive.

nzmsv 14y ago

So to follow your argument, being a lawyer does not make one "law". Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws? :) Also: Godwin's law.

saraid216 14y ago
> So to follow your argument, being a lawyer does not make one "law". ...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? Of course being a lawyer doesn't make you "the law". > Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws? Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. It's important; it's relevant; it contributes to society in a positive and melioristic way. > Also: Godwin's law. Do you actually know what Godwin's Law states?
- nzmsv 14y ago
  > ...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? No, it's not. I'm just poking fun at the parent post, specifically the "practicing science does not make you science" line. It just sounded like some bizarre variation of "you are (or not) what you eat" to me. > Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. I agree with this. Unfortunately, all too often people making laws about science know nothing about it, and end up setting discovery back. Ideally there would be someone in government whose critical thinking could balance out all the rhetoric. I'm not saying all lawyers should be replaced with scientists. > Do you actually know what Godwin's Law states? I have not yet been banned from Wikipedia. Re-read the comment I am replying to. He is arguing against putting scientists in government because the Nazis had scientists. It was a good trolling attempt though - look at us two go on about it :)
  - jstrate 14y ago
    >He is arguing against putting scientists in government because the Nazis had scientists. This doesn't comment does not merit a response, but no he is not.

starpilot 14y ago

I think about college and all the team projects. The best project lead I had was not necessarily the best at the material, but he was the most competent at delegating work, focusing the team, and moving things along. When he asked me to explain a concept he didn't understand, I didn't think less of him (short of major oversights). He was vastly more competent than I at managing the group though, and I didn't mind because it let me focus on the science. The best engineers/scientists do not necessarily make the best handlers of people. And any government lab or university engineering department has plenty of petty office politics, rife with enough absurdity that we have comics and movies about it.