There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

CosmicCleric ,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

Elaborate?

spiderwort OP ,

Two methods for determining policy.

We vote.

We do science.

Should we switch to the latter?

sweng ,

How about the current system where we vote and do science?

spiderwort OP ,

99% of the voters wouldn’t know science if it bit them on the butt

sweng ,

Sounds like a wildly unscientific statement, considering e.g ~10% of the US population works in STEM.

spiderwort OP ,

That doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, strangely enough.

Zorque ,

You make a good case for your own argument.

spiderwort OP ,

Well somebody’s got to.

Zorque ,

I mean, trying to prove your own theory by being the perfect case study seems a little extreme...

spiderwort OP ,

Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It’s just that the agenda isn’t precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.

Melkath ,

Science is an empirical method of finding fact.

Government is a philosophical method of seeking truth.

You are being pretty incoherent.

How does science determine the order initiatives are addressed?

spiderwort OP ,

Well first we would change beans into peas.

The rest is trivial.

MxM111 ,

Under representative democracy, policies are not defined by voting. Representatives are voted in, to make the decision. They supposed to make decisions based on facts (including scientific facts) and interests of the constituents. In order to do that, institutions are created, such is bureaucracy, executive branch, committees, etc., those will employ scientists as needed. But a policy can not be made just by scientists. Climatologists can not make policy about climate change, for example, because those should rely on many aspects, including economics, security, international relationships and even internal politics (different states have different needs).

MisterNeon ,
@MisterNeon@lemmy.world avatar

No. The problem with science is that in part it relies on trial and error. That could get messy on a societal level. We should utilize observation with scientific methods to inform our decisions. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t do that currently and scientific data results can also be manipulated to fulfill an agenda.

spiderwort OP ,

We have good models that offer up good decisions, so why put it to the vote?

Base our policy on tested models. Audit our reasoning thoroughly. Be rational.

Vs consult the masses, 99% of whom don’t even understand the question.

Seems like a no brainer

MisterNeon ,
@MisterNeon@lemmy.world avatar

Well in your scenario who will implement this? Furthermore, what is the goal that you’re trying to engineer with a science based government? Is it personal happiness, population numbers, the production of capital, or to indoctrinate the masses to serve the state? Are you going to justify the use of eugenics? What happens when goals conflict or individuals don’t want to participate in experiments? What if the science you’re implementing has different philosophies or different schools of thought? How do you determine what is the optimal method?

BolexForSoup ,
@BolexForSoup@kbin.social avatar

What models are you suggesting we use that are making these good decisions?

You’re using a lot of very general language throughout this thread. We need some elaboration. Otherwise it’s just “we should be logical and stuff.”

vext01 ,
@vext01@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Democracy could be said to work on trial an error too, just with human factors thrown into the mix?

MisterNeon ,
@MisterNeon@lemmy.world avatar

A very good point.

neidu2 ,

Should we replace bees with mathematics? Those two aren’t exactly valid substitutes for each other.

spiderwort OP , (edited )

Ooh look the monkeys like that one. Funny bees!

Think of them as 2 methods for determining policy. Sorry for the confusion.

Hegar ,
@Hegar@kbin.social avatar

Think of them as 2 methods for determining policy

They're not though.

Democracy is a strategy some states use to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. Science is a method for producing knowledge.

Policy is determined by the financial interests of our elites, our global imperial interests, and the form of our bureaucratic institutions.

Democracy, science and policy are three very distinct domains.

spiderwort OP ,

They’re also spelled differently, aha!

QueerCommie ,
@QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Science has no goal. It cannot determine policy. It can tell you how certain policies may affect certain metrics, but it matters who decides what metrics matter ie. do we care if people have food, or if line go up.

spiderwort OP ,

Assume that we’ve got self-evident goals. Maximization of health, happiness, security…

QueerCommie ,
@QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Self evident to whom? We are ruled by ghouls who care more about profit than people’s lives. Shouldn’t it be “self-evident” to Biden that committing genocide is bad? Shouldn’t it be “self-evident” that corporations shouldn’t be getting away after poisoning millions of people? Shouldn’t it be “self evident” that if people work all day their wages should be enough to allow them to live decently?

These things may obviously be good, but it won’t be done until we have a system that puts people over profit.

spiderwort OP ,

Jeez, soapbox much?

Yes, I think that a sane, self-aware, scientifically-rigorous system would choose public health over that bad stuff you mentioned.

Like The Federation in Star Trek.

QueerCommie ,
@QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Star Trek has an economic system, it’s not run “on science.” Star Trek is functionally fully automated luxury communism. Under capitalism we have the technology to have no scarcity, but that’s not profitable, so capitalists create scarcity by destroying excess product and not giving it to those in need. In Star Trek they have a duplicator thing so no one is in need and no one can make a profit. It is a communist utopia. If you want to see a rational society that implements policy for scientifically planned good look at China. Their ultimate goal is communism, but today for now their achievements include lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, heavily subsidizing green technology allowing it to be cheap and accessible, and lifting people’s living standards so that the life expectancy is higher the wealthy western countries.

spiderwort OP , (edited )

But does it have a voting system?

Because I don’t recall seeing any voting booths in the Enterprise.

QueerCommie ,
@QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I don’t know too much about Star Trek, but with that extreme post scarcity, what do you need a government for? The reason we communists support abolishing police is because you don’t need any coercion if everyone has whatever material thing they could want or need.

QueerCommie ,
@QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Why do you care? Star Trek is fictional, but socialism is real and democratic, moving toward communism (like Star Trek).

livus ,
@livus@kbin.social avatar

@spiderwort could you give me some concrete examples. I can see it with a few things but not others. How does science determine:

  • abortion laws
  • your nation's stance on Israel
  • marriage's effect on taxes
  • individual custody disputes
  • animal cruelty laws
spiderwort OP ,

Observe, model, propose policies… run simulations even

Plain ol science

livus ,
@livus@kbin.social avatar

I'm trying to keep an open mind here but so far, you're being too vague to be persuasive.

Observe what exactly?

Model what?

Propose what kind of policies based on what assumptions and which goals?

Obviously I know what science is. I just don't see how it applies here.

Observe what exactly? If you're designing an experiment you know what results you're interested in and what implications the research has.

Seriously, pick one thing from my list above and talk me through how you would use pure science to formulate policy?

jewbacca117 ,

Really we should just replace mathematics with bees. I can’t think of a problem that can’t be solved with more bees.

neidu2 ,

I’m thinking Snoop Dogg - Drop It Lik It’s Hot
But everytime he says “pop/drop it like it’s hot” it should instead be “add a swarm of bees”

Zorque ,

How would you be able to tell there are more bees without mathematics?

jewbacca117 ,

Easy, more bees

eezeebee ,
@eezeebee@lemmy.ca avatar

Absolutely

neidu2 ,

You add some, then you know for sure.

intensely_human ,

Honey’s nice

MaggiWuerze ,
livus ,
@livus@kbin.social avatar

I would much rather this than OP's proposal.

xylogx ,

So like philosopher kings?

spiderwort OP , (edited )

I was thinking straight up science.

Given these observations, these firmly established scientific models and this bit of sound reasoning, we conclude that these policies should be implemented.

No voting required.

sweng ,

You forget a piece: “Given these observations, these objectives, and this bit of sound reasoning, …”

Without objectives, no amount of reasoning will tell you what to do. Who sets the objectives?

over_clox ,

Science has brought us some rather advanced artificial intelligence that can do many amazing things.

It can model extremely complex protein chains, yet can’t even render a hand properly and doesn’t even comprehend how people consume nutrients.

You really wanna leave all the decisions up to science and technology?

spiderwort OP ,

Well that’s the question.

Voting means lots of dummies, a sea of propaganda… Bad stuff there too.

over_clox ,

While I can agree that dummies shouldn’t be allowed to vote, how would/could/should we go about designing a proper voter verification program that more or less eliminates the actual dummies/sheeple?

But I don’t think taking the voter factor completely out of the equation in favor of pure raw science is the answer either.

If you leave everything to science, then science would say the world is overpopulated and we should eliminate half or more of the population…

spiderwort OP ,

I read a short story where they took a humane approach to population reduction.

An engineered disease. A short fever and then your uterus stops working. 95% effective.

Rioting. All scientists hung. But the world was better.

over_clox ,

You must be really fun at parties…

/s

hperrin ,

Ah yes, forced sterilization. Very humane.

That’s called fascism. You read a fascist fan-fic. I guarantee the people who were forcefully sterilized wouldn’t agree that the world was better.

spiderwort OP ,

It’s called science fiction you gibbering philistine.

hikaru755 ,

And science fiction somehow can’t be fascist?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines