Is A Rational Nation Ruled By Science A Terrible Idea? (newscientist.com) 609
Slashdot reader schwit1 quotes an article from Jeffrey Guhin, an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA:
Imagine a future society in which everything is perfectly logical. What could go wrong...? Last week, US astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson offered up the perfect example of scientism when he proposed the country of Rationalia, in which "all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence". Tyson is a very smart man, but this is not a smart idea. It is even, we might say, unreasonable and without sufficient evidence... employing logic to consider the concept reveals that there could be no such thing...
First, experts usually don't know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that -- through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true -- mislead us and misinterpret information... And second, science has no business telling people how to live. It's striking how easily we forget the evil that following "science" can do. So many times throughout history, humans have thought they were behaving in logical and rational ways, only to realize that such acts have yielded morally heinous policies that were only enacted because reasonable people were swayed by "evidence".
First, experts usually don't know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that -- through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true -- mislead us and misinterpret information... And second, science has no business telling people how to live. It's striking how easily we forget the evil that following "science" can do. So many times throughout history, humans have thought they were behaving in logical and rational ways, only to realize that such acts have yielded morally heinous policies that were only enacted because reasonable people were swayed by "evidence".
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Running things by believing whatever your friends on the internet says isn't really working out, so let's try it! If it doens't work, at least it'll be able to say that...
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Allow me to introduce you to Eugenics. It was perfectly valid and rational system in it's day, backed by what at the time was believed to be hard scientific data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
What's wrong with eugenics?
you are waaaaaay off (Score:3, Insightful)
Eugenics is NOT about measuring people's head to determine intelligence, it is about artificial selection and much needed quality control. That was just the tool used at the time, turned it is wrong, doesn't mean eugenics is wrong. For example, medicine was treating sick people by bleeding them, we know that's BS today, does that make medicine BS? Sure enough, medicine is BS today, but not because it used to treat people by bleeding them dry, but because it has turned into a very profitable business that ma
Re:Evolution vs selective breeding (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice tits is a desirable trait. Doesn't mean I'm practicing Eugenics when I chase the tits owner/operater.
Eugenics practiced by society isn't bad just because the traits being bred for were wrong. It was bad because it put too much power in the hands of government, which can't be trusted.
Even if their were an absolute genetic ideal, it would still be a bad idea to give government that much power. They will run with it.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Allow me two literary examples, that will surely illustrate the quandry better than can I, myself.
First, I propose Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. Anybody embarking on a discussion of technophillic, purely-rational society without having read this book, speaks from a deficit. That supposedly well-educated men like De Grasse Tyson make shallow, straw-man proposals are a strong argument that Huxley's literary presentation is as valid today, as it was in 1931.
Wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World [wikipedia.org]
The full text of the novel: Brave New World [huxley.net]
A second point is made metaphorically, by Gothe, in his "Sorcerer's Apprentice". It is a poem, and suffers in English. For the purpose of our argumentation, it is sufficient to be familiar with the presentation of this material in Disney's "Fantasia" - provided that an audience is equipped with an ability to understand allusions, and to make practical intuitions.
In the end, I suppose Dr. De Grasse Tyson - a delightful fellow - is adept at understanding and representing the powerful creative and intellectual efforts of others, while exhibiting little individual insight or power for deep thought.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
You assume that you are at least a Beta not a Delta or a Gamma.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
the premise for having deltas and gammas was that there is labor that no intelligent person would want to do. (cleaning toilets all day, for instance.)
Given sufficient advancement in technology, there is no legitimate reason to produce deltas and gammas (which were created on purpose, specifically to fulfill these service roles), since artificial servitors can fill those roles, both more reliably, and more affordably.
Since we are "Nearly there" in terms of automation eclipsing manual labor in service industry positions, his supposition is not incorrect.
Huxley just did not envision an artificial servitor class satisfying the necessary role. That's why he created the Delta and Gamma classes in his fiction.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Huxley probably could imagine an extrapolate automation in labor.
His object was not to demonstrate flaws in a society built on supposed rationality. His target was more basic - that satisfaction of the human condition cannot be met by full rationalization and meeting of physical needs in a structured external world. In fact, the presence of Soma was to indicate a function of SUPPRESSING those human aspects that were entirely unable to be satisfied by the purely rational and practical.
Huxley's target for criticism is not a future, optimized society, but the culture that we live in today, as emerged from the Cartesian revolution - the "enlightenment".
Again, an appreciation for parables is an indication of the capacity for insight.
Re: (Score:3)
Huxley includes them to illustrate in his parable, the lengths to which a "rational" society can go, towards de-humanization.
Do not think for a minute, that the mere technical removal of a need for menial and hazardous labor will result in a utopia. Without reform of the entire human scope of people - not just their rational component - technology becomes simply a means to more ruthlessly pursue de-humanization, while giving it further "rational" justification.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dehumanization is, sadly, a requirement for any society greater than 300 persons.
The human brain is simply not equipped to handle additional humans as fully operating human actors at population densities greater than this.
EG-- the people you live with are real people-- the people across town are an abstract conception.
Unless you want to make a society that does not have humans in it (instead, having post-humans of some kind), the grim reality is that dehumanization of some degree is going to be necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Demonstrably untrue. You see and interact with people from across town all the time. So, unless you yourself are incapable of seeing them as real, your argument fails. If this *is* a failing of yours - don't project.
Not that I actually think you have that failing. I think you're conflating not knowing them personally with seeing them as an abstract conception. Solipsism, in short.
Re: (Score:3)
Somebody still has to look after the artificial servitors - eg. clean the gunk out of the soup machines.
That was part of the joke of Red Dwarf where Lister and Rimmer were so lowly that they were servants to the servant machines.
Re: (Score:2)
"Time Machine" sounds great, to those who assume they are Eloi.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am a morlock. I have never imagined otherwise. I even have the seemingly perverse pleasure in repairing and maintaining machines.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly.
The morlocks are the descendants of the working class-- Factory workers, specifically. The Time Machine is strongly colored by the industrial age it was written in. There was a huge divide between the landed gentry, who owned everything-- and the working poor, who despite automation, were now slaves to the machines they maintained and operated.
The Eloi were the descendants of the privileged classes.
The mismanagement of the Eloi's descendants toward the living and working conditions of the Morlocks, led to a degeneracy of both-- The eloi lost all concept of what must actually be done for things to come to fruition, and the morloks became degenerate subhumans, who's management of the mechanistic side of things was purely instinctual.
Due to this divide, the eloi failed to meet the needs of the morlocks, and the morlocks satisfied those needs, by eating the eloi. The eloi continue to be sustained by the instinctual actions of the morlocks in the tunnels underneath their havens-- and the two, now distinctly inhuman populations, live in a delicate symbiotic balance, both through pure instinct, and not through reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
You assume that you are at least a Beta not a Delta or a Gamma.
Any problems in the society described in "Brave New World" are constructs of the author to create conflict for the plot. The society as a whole is an example of a near Utopian society once to insert a more realistic form of genetic engineering and workplace automation. Once you add those there is no reason for the different classes.
Re: Well... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
premise that evolution had an objective goal, and that we could inpret that goal and hasten things along through selective breeding of humans.
You have it backwards. Evolution favors the "fittest" - In our society that means the people who have the most children: e.g. the uneducated, the religious conservatives.
Eugenics is about using selective breeding to fight against evolution. But not in the way you might think. People are not farm animals.
Eugenics just means providing the right economic incentives, for example free childcare for working parents. Encourage good parents to have more children, and troubled young people to delay parenthood until
Re:Science is still vague and unsettled (Score:4, Insightful)
Tyson is nonsensical.
Science is a tool and a methodology for acquisition and extrapolation of quantitative states.
Presuming to base a society solely on quantitative basis, and imagining that qualitative determinations will be irrelevant in the face of self-evident data analysis is fundamentally flawed. By negating the existence of assumptions and bias - and the very real experience of people individually and collectively beyond their units of measure, Tyson proposes a world more deeply subject to unconsious forces - grown more powerful, because they are assumed not to exist!
He should call such a society "Bias-o-topia" NOT "Rationalia".
In the end, his proposal amounts to little more than an elaboration on the fantastic notion that the world should be ruled by measuring tapes and telescopes - perhaps by means of a gearbox.
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said for Marxism. I can't fault the logic behind it at any level. But the devil is in the implementation details.
Re:Science is still vague and unsettled (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But how are we going to demonize the other side then? What names will we call them? On what basis will we set ourselves above our neighbors? And if we're not better people than them, how do we justify ruling over them and using their (lesser) existences to further our own personal goals?
Are you against progress?
Science is political when it meets policy (Score:3)
First stop politicizing science, then give me a call.
Science is already politicized and will be whether you like it or not. There is a role for people like Dr. Tyson to explain to the uninitiated what science means and just as important what it doesn't. Want to find out about our genetic code via embryonic stem cells? Better be ready to defend against irrational folks who think that means killing babies. Want to explore space? Better be ready to fight for funding which is a purely political battle.
Science is always political as soon as it gets used to ju
Re:Science is still vague and unsettled (Score:4, Interesting)
Marxism is unerring in its diagnosis and analysis. In fact, a fantastic application of scientific method, or at least scientific spirit of inquiry, to political thought. Allowing for the biases and limitations of mid-19th century knowledge.
The problem with Marx and his rational followers is in their prescription for remedy of the ills of class, and unfettered, imperial capital.
Marx's anachronistic history, where he doesn't see class an hierarchy emerging from agrarian technologies and the need to order societies for harvest and surplus, are not too bad a failing. He could not have anticipated the rise of anthropology and of archaeological discovery, as yet unmade.
Re:Science is still vague and unsettled (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever else you may think of him... Marx was right about one thing, capitalism was and is hugely exploitative, fundamentally unjust and flies in the face of freedom. He repeatedly warned against achieving socialism through violent revolution because he correctly surmised that doing so would lead to abusive autocracies, he believe it MUST be achieved democratically if it was to have any chance at all of success.
The proof that capitalism was all the evils he called it - is that revolutions DID happen, against his advice, and despite ending up exactly as he predicted. The blame for everybody ever killed by a communist dictator belongs squarely with capitalism. If capitalism had not been so entirely evil, the revolutions would never have happened and those dictators would never have come to power. Revolutions do not come easy. People will put up with a LOT before they are willing to risk personal life and limb to change a social order they are now unlikely to live to see. Revolutions come - when the majority of people have been so thoroughly exploited that they have absolutely nothing left to lose.
If capitalism had not left the world with millions of people who had nothing left to lose - then Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao would never have been in power. Marx said the machines of capitalism are oiled by the blood of the workers and I would add -and fueled by the burning corpses of the colonized.
The end result of capitalism is severe inequality and the INEVITABLE result of severe inequality can only ever be violent revolution.
Re: (Score:3)
His concept is fundamentally flawed on two counts. 1) society must adapt to new situations, and science only helps one interpret pre-existing data, and 2) one cannot morally run multiple experiments on society to determine the best policy.
Re:Science is still vague and unsettled (Score:5, Interesting)
society must adapt to new situations, and science only helps one interpret pre-existing data,
On the plus side, there is one whole heck of a lot of pre-existing data and truly novel situations generally arise slowly and rarely. Religious extremists popped up about the same time as religion, global warming evidence was first published almost a century ago, and even ubiquitous government surveillance has been done many times to great effect.
Is there something in particular that you see happening recently that would exploit your flaw? Also, "do/change nothing" is a perfectly rational choice that requires no experimentation while the data flows in.
Re:Science is still vague and unsettled (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on. If something is seems good on paper, but turns out to be bad in reality, that means that the theory is actually pretty much shit; you just haven't thought hard enough about it.
You can't find fault in the logic underlying Marxism? How about the central assumption that cooperation will naturally overcome competitiveness? Does anything about what you've observed in human nature suggest that that's a valid assumption across the entire species (not just some exceptions)? I mean, think of the prisoners dilemma, and extend that across broader society. All it takes is one group of people understanding that collusion, at the expense of the collective, can produce an outcomes that vastly favor themselves, and you've got yourself a power/resource imbalance. See every failed communist state ever.
Re:Science is still vague and unsettled (Score:4, Insightful)
Competitiveness is not a magic solution. When a pharmaceutical company brings a drug to market, it's patented and over time other companies can sell generic versions and conduct their own research with it and variants of it. But when a pharmaceutical company researches a drug and the drug is deemed to ineffective or unsafe to bring to market, it's buried - and there's a good chance a dozen other pharmaceutical companies will have researched and then dropped the same drug. Or look at planned obsolescence. Do cars need their styling tweaked every four years, and the cupholder layout rearranged? How about smart phones, wonderful pieces of engineering that consumers are expected to discard in two years because it's better for the vendor - not the consumer - if they do. How about foods and large food portions laden with extra salt and sugar because they sell more? And I don't begrudge Jane and John Doe their choice when they take a 5500 pound SUV to drop off their only child at elementary school, but you can't call that model an efficient use of resources. Competition is not always efficient.
I do agree that Marx's cure for capitalism is unworkable, for the reasons you describe. But I think his criticisms are rock solid.
Re: (Score:3)
Further, the competition for labor pits people against each other. And worst of all, the employer/owner/investor has a financial incentive to treat employees as poorly as he can get away with without hurting productivity or driving the employee to quit.
Abuse.
You and I are lucky, we're in the tiny portion of the labor market where demand exceeds supply. S
Re:Science is still vague and unsettled (Score:4, Interesting)
Tyson is nonsensical.
Science is a tool and a methodology for acquisition and extrapolation of quantitative states.
What's interesting is that we've seen the same emphasis on quantitative states in the tech industry over the last decade or so. I wonder if the pedistalization of numeric "Data" over any other type of analysis is related to the fact that there are people who in some fit on insanity could possibly think that Rationalia is a good idea.
Big Data without domain knowledge is useless; and logic without philosophy is flat out dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet. Still, you'll note that choosing mates tends to bias heavily towards the successful, strong, healthy, and intelligent in various combinations.
Oh. Right. I suppose if you really stress the concept of 'various combinations' you might have a point, but this silly statement is exactly why Tyson's idea of rationality doesn't work. Hormones aren't especially rational.
"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal." - RAH.
Re: (Score:2)
What I love about this is that a sociologist, of all people, a practitioner of a "science" almost as soft (read: inaccurate and trend-driven) as psychology, feels compelled to weigh in on the unreasonable nature of trying for actual correctness.
I think he's very well-positioned to refute this idea. He knows better than most that human nature is not rational, and won't fit neatly into a rational-based society. He likely has the data to back up those assertions.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
> They weren't wrong
No, they were wrong. Very wrong, in fact.
The basic idea is to separate good traits by some kind of (genetic) selection. Unfortunately, that's not so simple. I myself fell under that misleading notion some decades ago -- not exactly regarding Eugenics, but also regarding how Genetics work. I questioned a teacher, he was right (but not in his best day to provide a good answer). Years later I found he was really right and I posed as idiot to myself. I digress -- but just to say that the reality is sometimes more complex than what we understand at a given moment. Same goes for nuclear reactors, IMHO.
The basic idea is that e.g., a couple with a 80 IQ can have a 200 IQ child, while a 140 IQ couple might only have 120 IQ children for instance. Mutations are involved and one should not evaluate the outcome by the inputs. The result must evaluated itself; it follows that the best strategy is to allow all possible combinations (which is the opposite of the Eugenics idea).
The more I get old, the more wise I think is the phrase "Don't judge".
> and it's means it is.
Yes. And it doesn't help that English uses " 's " to denote a possessive, which could explain that some mistakes " it's day" for "day of it" (which also is not a possessive, BTW).
Re: (Score:3)
And even though some groups in society out breed others, but a eugenics program just with monogamous couples would take forever. And the consequences of breaking monogamy would be devastating to western culture.
Random mating selection will give you the greatest diversit
Re: (Score:2)
There is the error in your beliefs about good government, namely that it should "run things".
Re:Well...You (Score:2)
It has already been tried to some degree. Nazi Germany based a lot of its policies on the treasure of science from the execution off crippled and mentally ill people who were scientifically shown to be a burden to society presently or in the future with their T4 program or their eventual final solution for those of lesser heritage through the scientific wonders of Eugenics.
And this proud scientific achievement was not alone in just Nazi Germany. Eugenics was prevalent in many areas outside of Germany includ
Deeper problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that science, if done well, can tell us what the observable consequences of our actions might be, but it will never tell us what outcomes we should value. For instance, do we value equality or progress? Do we value the happiness of animals as much as that of humans? Do we value freedom or security? The answers to none of these questions are self-evident (and saying that they are self-evident does not make it so).
These are all the province of moral philosophy, and that field gives no easy answers.
Dan
Imagine a future society in which everything is .. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the children, of course.
Science does not dictate values. (Score:3, Insightful)
Way too many words have been said while beating around this simple bush:
Any conclusion about how something "should" be is a combination of two elements:
1) how things already are
2) our preferences
Science gives us #1. Our values give us #2. Eliminate either from the equation, and you have all kinds of stupidity and suffering.
That is really all there is to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Better to "retire" the elderly by sending them to be ground up into "pure pork sausage", while they can still contribute. Ditto children (and adults, if any get past childhood screening) who are incapable of thinking clearly....
Re: Imagine a future society in which everything i (Score:2)
I'm not sure we can claim that supporting unproductive members of society is, or is not, "logical" unless we k ow what the society's end goal is.
And I'm not aware of any means by which science or mere rationality can determine such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It would still be better than the alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, but it would still be better than allowing religion or money telling people how to live.
Re: It would still be better than the alternatives (Score:2, Insightful)
Not if some religion is true.
(Here we begin a predictably unresolved debate about religion, rationity, what constitutes evidence, limits of human ability to reason soundly, straw men, etc.)
Which bit is true? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if some religion is true.
Ok, which bit is true? How do you propose to objectively prove it? How do you tell the difference between the "false" religions and the "true" one(s)?
Rhetorical questions of course. Religion by definition cannot be objectively true because it depends of belief in something which isn't falsifiable. If it cannot in principle be measured or observed (with past, existing or future technology) then it cannot be true.
(Here we begin a predictably unresolved debate about religion, rationity, what constitutes evidence, limits of human ability to reason soundly, straw men, etc.)
You're the one that brought it up...
The actual tweet (Score:5, Informative)
“Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence[.]”
All the reaction to that tweet is based on what people assume he meant by it. This is obviously a sociologist's dream topic to discuss because it can mean whatever you want it to mean and debate it endlessly without ever reaching a conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is a lot of issues are not well understood enough to take a perfectly rational, evidence based approach on. And particularly with psychology, sociology and other "soft" science, evidence is often weak and we just have to try things and see how they turn out.
We do have some fairly rational countries, like there northern European ones, and they are the best places in the world to live overall. But even they rely on a lot of old wisdom, tried and tested but not necessarily well understood ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As vague as his statement was, there is still A LOT wrong with it. Data does not equal Truth (Capital 'T'). To govern, it is not enough to know the speed of light or understand general relativity. Science provides no special wisdom or insight into the nature of human suffering. Science is not truth. Science is an epistemological baseball bat that you whack ideas with. If they die from their injuries, then they had it coming...The ideas that survive get passed to the next scientist, and the next, all across
Re: (Score:2)
It's better than what we have now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's better than what we have now... (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, people are not rational and there's little chance that they ever will be. Your policies will need to reflect that. You can try and ban religion "because it's stupid" but you're going to have some nasty riots on your hand. For that reason I don;t believe in a "rational society", but I do believe at the very least that we should apply some "weight of evidence" to the kind of policies we are making today.
Re: (Score:3)
... which is essentially a corrupt theocracy. I'd gladly live in a society run by rational ideas over what we have now.
Oh, you mean something like Scientific_socialism [wikipedia.org].
No thanks.
Re: It's better than what we have now... (Score:2)
Which country are you call in a theocracy? If you mean the US, I'm curious why you think it is one.
And if you'd gladly love elsewhere, why don't you? Wouldn't that be... "rational "?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he's right. It is a theocracy. They worship the all mighty dollar.
Science is far better than the alternative... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's compare Science against the philosophies that current rule our societies.
Nationalism? Capitalism? Fear? RELIGION??!
I'll take science....
No (Score:2, Insightful)
Being misled while attempting to base your laws off of actual physical evidence isn't is bad as us currently making up our laws based off the fucking BIBLE.
Re: No (Score:3)
The Kuma Satra?
It's how you define the 'utility function' (Score:5, Insightful)
Any optimization approach/algorithm is set up to maximize the value of its utility function. Consider two utility functions for getting from "A" to "B", 'fewest miles' or 'fastest'. A direct route that takes you down 10 miles of roads at a speed limit of 30 MPH, compared to 20 miles on an interstate at 65 MPH, will win under the first utility but not under the second.
The same thing holds true for public policy. Do you want "most lives saved?" Do you want "greatest economic output?" Do you want "Least tax burden?"
So independent of any other consideration, there is huge judgement and therefore huge variation when trying to conduct 'rational policy' by what you choose as your utility function.
Re:It's how you define the 'utility function' (Score:5, Interesting)
How about "Greatest utilitarian happiness?"
http://utilitarianphilosophy.c... [utilitaria...osophy.com]
Right now, our society(ies) are being managed for the increase in happiness of the 1%, which is contradictive to maximizing utilitarian happiness (which seeks the highest degree of happiness for all members of the society.)
It appears to me that a scientifically guided society would favor utilitarian happiness as the utility function.
Re:It's how you define the 'utility function' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Statement made with incomplete or incorrect data.
Gay people still produce material goods for the society, without producing children to consume those resources. For a total society, they increase the survival chances of the offspring that are produced, simply by being part of the society, and producing material goods for that society.
The condemnation of homosexual relationships has more to do with "ethics" (or more specifically, the set of rules a society likes to claim are correct and proper behavior) than
Re: (Score:3)
Gay marriage/sex does nothing to perpetuate the species, therefore it is illogical to support it.
Here again, because we don't know the how or why of something doesn't mean we need to fill in the blanks with complete and utter bullshit.
Re:It's how you define the 'utility function' (Score:5, Interesting)
The same thing holds true for public policy. Do you want "most lives saved?" Do you want "greatest economic output?" Do you want "Least tax burden?"
So independent of any other consideration, there is huge judgement and therefore huge variation when trying to conduct 'rational policy' by what you choose as your utility function.
It sure would be nice to have a universal utility function for all public policy. But in the meantime, what if we just said that any of those (lives saved, economic output, lower tax burden) are an acceptable foundation for you to base an argument on, but "because my ancient book of sacred texts says so" isn't?
This wouldn't lead to 100% logical consistency in policy, but it would surely be an improvement over the current system, don't you think?
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever read the Old Testament? Have you learned the Babylonian Talmud? At least once religion is all about creating a functioning society that enriches everyone's lives as much as possible. Sure, there's ritual components to Judaism, too. It is a religion, after all. However, assuming that no religion can provide a basis for a functioning society demonstrates your ignorance of religion.
Re: (Score:2)
But at some point, we have to establish a baseline for how many annual traffic deaths we find "acceptable" as a society. You're left with either a law based on sheer ev
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. But even if people were to agree completely on their "utility functions" (values, preferences), it would still be impossible for government to optimize it: it simply lacks the necessary information and is intrinsically incapable of acting without corruption.
The best way we know for optimizing utility functions in real societies is via distributed decision making, aka, a free market. And once you do that, individuals can also have different utility functions.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, (1) widely distributed decision-making has real problems with ensuring everyone has reasonably enough information to act rationally in a timely basis; (2) then an assumption that people act rationally in aggregate. The two very large scale distributed decision-making examples I can think of are (a) stock markets and (b) elections. It's going to be damn hard to argue the value of large scale distributed decision making from -those- two examples.
"This is Perfectly Rational" (Score:5, Interesting)
...according to someone who many or may not actually be rational about any given subject.
I've met a lot of high-reputation scientists and academics over the years, and far too many of them are pretty useless outside of their chosen profession. A significant number of them are pretty useless INSIDE their chosen profession, too - and those are the ones who would be talking the loudest about whatever government policies were in question. You wouldn't be getting Richard Feynman advising you about physics. You'd be getting that sociology professor who blathered their way to a doctorate setting everyone's social policy, with no way of stopping them.
Until we can figure out a way to rationally measure rational thinking, we'd be falling into the trap of believing "experts" who actually let their own self-interest control them.
Re: (Score:2)
Until we can figure out a way to rationally measure rational thinking, we'd be falling into the trap of believing "experts" who actually let their own self-interest control them.
Exactly. We all think we are rational beings whose decisions are made via a logical and rational thought process, when we actually are often irrational in very predictable ways. We just don't know it; and thus are often easily influenced into doing things that are not rational or making irrational decisions.
For example, many people would drive 5 miles to save $10 on a $20 item, yet not be willing to to save $10 off of a $1000 item; yet in each case they save the same amount of money, the purchase price has
Experts are usually wrong when.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In general I would rather have experts in charge than careerists - who account for 90% of politicians.
Having said that I remember an encounter with a mathematician colleague who was looking under the bonnet (hood) of his car for an electrical fault because both headlamps were out. It took only a little lateral thinking - and a bit of persuasion from me for him to accept that probably he'd been driving on just one, and hadn't noticed it till the second one failed. Nevertheless he accepted the counter argument, just imagine any politician doing that.
Distinction between science and emotion (Score:2)
It is never science itself that is 'evil', it's the implementation of policies (chosen by irrational humans), then selectively plucking out disparate facts that (seemingly) support the policy and calling it 'scientifically-based'.
(a poor example) The chemical processes involved in (traditional) photography are scientific. They've been investigated, the knowledge shared, the processes broken down to their component parts to better understand, the results verified a million times.
Using photography to 'prove'
Summary implies all scientists are bad (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but
1) Most are willing to admit they are wrong when an experiment result contradicts their theories.
2) Most are looking for the right answer, not the most profitable one.
I'd take that over our current Golden Rule model every time. Just look at leaded gasoline, waste disposal, or climate change to see examples of the golden rule hurting the average person. We have gotten rid of leaded gasoline, but it took one scientist [wikipedia.org] nine years to convince the government that big business was lying. We're still fighting big business for good, long-term waste disposal and to minimize climate change
The only challenge I see is that, if we ever did switch to the Science Rule model, greedy idiots will claim to be scientists and put the true scientists in the minority, which would bring us back to the Golden Rule model anyway.
(I say Most in the bullets above because I'm pretty sure folks in it for the money these days wouldn't be scientists. But I also know there are a few bad scientists, so I sure as heck won't say 100%. I have no idea of how to test a scientist to see if they are good or not, other than to have well educated folks review a scientist's previous work.)
Some of Tyson's thoughts.... (Score:2)
...should have died in the pot-fueled dorm room bullsh*t session they were formed in. This is one of them.
Like the article says, scientists are people too, and they may have finely honed their knowledge in their area of expertise, but beyond that, they know as much- or as little- as anyone else.
It's also absurd to think that the selection of topics of study, or the lead 'scientists' in charge of an area of policy, won't be driven by considerations outside of strict evidence. They'll fabricate it to obtain t
Think of the Bonus! (Score:2)
A huge problem (Score:3, Insightful)
There's one huge reason why ruling your society based on "science" is a bad idea: What you will generally find is that, whatever method you use to govern, it will eventually fall under the sway and corruption of the rich and powerful. Attempting to merge science and politics won't result in politics being ruled by scientists, but in science being run by politicians.
Of course, there are other more specific problems, one being that "scientists" are often not as detached and rational as they believe themselves to be. What constitutes sufficient evidence is itself under constant debate. There are difficulties with the question of whether science can determine morality... And more. Every vague or uncertain point and every place where there's wiggle-room will become a tool of people seeking political power.
And why do you think "creationism" is a thing, after all? You try to marry science and politics, and politicians will exploit ignorance and uncertainty to make their positions sound "scientific" to those who don't know better. Neil deGrasse Tyson wants more of that? He should stick to physics, and stay out of fields he doesn't understand.
Perfect? No. Better? No idea! (Score:2)
But, surely the question is not whether such a society would be perfect, but whether it would be better - on average - than other arrangements currently on offer
Subtractive versus Additive Application of Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse science with benevolence (Score:2)
Freedom vs. Logic (Score:2)
Freedom requires a certain amount of illogical latitude. There are all kinds of things people should be free to do which might cause harm to themselves or not be rational or logical. You cannot be free in a society which imposes strict logic and reason. Logic and science would seek to minimize risk and harm, but without risk and possible harm, innovation can be severely stifled. So while it is a good thing to generally live life rationally, and with laws based on science... it cannot be taken to an extre
Scientifically Optimize for Which Variable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Using scientific reasoning to rationally choose between potential decisions is a great idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of deciding the basis of the questions. Logic can really only solve for one variable at a time. People will still have to decide which societal variables to solve and how to balance the weight of multiple variables. Fair is never fair to everybody. You are always having to make trade-offs between forms of fairness: equity, equality and welfare.
Anti expert (Score:5, Insightful)
First, experts usually don't know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that -- through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true -- mislead us and misinterpret information... And second, science has no business telling people how to live.
What is it with this recent trend of anti-expertism? This arguement was used in the Brexit as well as several political campaigns of recent times. People confronted with evidence that something isn't working rather than address the evidence move straight into either:
a) attacking something about a study that has nothing to do with the evidence e.g. who commissioned it or the fact that it disagrees with an own internally biased study (see Australian election where the Coalition attacked Labor's economic credentials as non existent despite their treasurer winning awards for his policy and the direct impact of his policy keeping a country out of a recession.
b) attacking people who believe in studys saying things like "The public is sick of experts". Interesting this is a statement often made by a career politician rather than their far more educated advisers. Damn those smart people with their fancy degrees, what would they know.
This is the rise of President Camacho
Humans are not capable of being 100% rational (Score:2)
Logic Systems are based on Values Tables (Score:2)
There are many different logic systems and using the wrong one in context can be bad, as any young man who has tried to use formal logic when girlfriend logic was contextually required has learned the hard way.
But the core of the problem doesn't change: It's who defines what logic is appropriate that causes the grief because any logic system is based on a values table. Sometimes this is explicit sometimes implicit, but it's always there. This difference between values is the core problem and where the solut
Perhaps, but... (Score:2)
First, experts usually don't know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that -- through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true -- mislead us and misinterpret information...
I'm not quite sure how you can make "scientists" mean "experts"; a scientist is somebody who conducts research, guided by evidence and logic - a true scientist is instictively averse to making bold statements about how things are, because they know how easily a good-sounding theory can be tripped up by reality - whereas "experts" is a much more loosely defined group, ranging from those few who actually know what they talk about, to the many that don't, but like to hear their opinions; a certain Mr Trump spr
What?!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the author seriously suggesting science shouldn't tell people that smoking is dangerous to their health and the health of those around them? That for their own well being they shouldn't smoke? What about pregnant mothers who do drugs? Does the author truly believe that women shouldn't be told how they're poisoning their unborn child through drugs?*
If the author is a scientist (I didn't check), they should have their credentials revoked. It is well within the realm of science to tell people how to live their lives BUT not force them to. People should be free to determine their own course of action based on the scientific evidence and in so doing, can not later complain no one told them something was bad for them (see cigarette lawsuits for a perfect example of such a situation).
* I only bring this up because of the whiners who talk about abortion killing a person yet remain absolutely silent when pregnant women poison that same person for nine straight months. Apparently poisoning is perfectly acceptable to them so long as something comes out. After all, they're not the ones who are going to pay for the mentally/physically deformed kid.
Well, that's the dumbest thing I'll read all day (Score:2)
It is indeed terrible (Score:2)
Bacause you know, humans?
Humans just don't like anything.
The worst idea ever, except for all those others (Score:2)
Except politicians know even less, a
Worked for Doctor Doom... (Score:2)
Re: A rational answer to Black Lives Matters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to emphasise the when practiced correctly because, let me see, around 40,000 MRI neurology papers are now considered invalid [theregister.co.uk], there's something called The Decline Effect [newyorker.com] in medicine and there's a Replication Crisis [theatlantic.com] is psychology.
So what, specifically, are you proposing here?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not entirely correct. Humans will respond poorly to situations that do not favor their happiness. As another poster pointed out, the issue with any optimization strategy is defining the utility function-- what are you trying to maximize?
For a society, there are a number of things that you could try to maximize. Wealth, for instance. However, wealth is really only useful when there is a disproportion of it, since otherwise it becomes useless. (a thing that is universally ubiquitous has no trade val
Re: (Score:2)
"A "pure" anything society is by definition dangerous."
Exactly.
Neil deGrasse Tyson asks "Rationalia: A World Where Evidence is God?"
Evidence as a God? But who decides what counts as evidence, what evidence to focus on, what it means, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep trying to do just that but every time I ask why I have to hand over my money to a private company to pay for someone else's healthcare I'm told to shut and do what I'm told. In essence, I'm being made a slave because of other people forcing their will upon me.
Re: (Score:3)