|
On August 12 2011 23:44 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:44 Sablar wrote:On August 12 2011 22:23 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
I think many people seem regard scientists like some sort of rational, methodical robot that will carefully weigh the evidence and decide what is right. I don't think anyone has suggested this. Rather, they are beter than average people at rational, methodical thought, but obviously not perfect. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Scientists agree about nothing and there are always different camps within diciplines much like political parties. False. Scientists agree about a great many things. When they do disagree, then that's something you don't have enough knowledge to act on anyway. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Sociology and stuff regarding the whole society can't really be measured though, and there would never be a consensus or even close to it regarding what was right. This goes for economics, psychology etc as well. False. Look up a sociology or economics journal sometime. Both fields are rooted in empirical science. I can't speak for psychology personally, but I would assume the same is true of it as well. And again, there is plenty of consensus in every field. Just about everything studied up to the undergraduate level is scientific consensus. It's enough to fill vast libraries and most of Wikipedia. You seem to be working off of popular stereotypes about science, without any idea of how it actually works. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Making sure to consult those who have knowledge in fields relevant to decisions is of course important, but that's how it's done today. Yes, but then the politicians ignore or override those experts, which is how we get a lot of problems. Look at pretty much any field of science and people will be disaegreeing. From the existence of some theorized physical matter to the motivations of humans or the most important reasons behind unempoyment. There are contradicting results and camps with different ideas and discussions that pretty much never get settled. There isn't a consensus, instead text books are filled the "the x perspective" as opposed to "the y perspective". Something being "rooted in empircal sciences" doesn't mean that is somehow objective or that there is a right answer. It's far too complicated to know about all the factors in society in order to make accurate preductions about economics or about how crime will be effected by different changes in society. You just can't control such variables and because of that science can't give any clear answers. At best there is good line of reasoning behind whatever prediction is made. In the end that line of reasoning may or may not be better than that of an elected politicians, but that alone doesn't make it a better system. Also sociology is more qualitative than quantitative overall. So don't say things are false when they aren't, and don't question my character because I was the only one who admitted to using generalizations about scientists. They are disagreeing about some things and agreeing about others. Those things that are not agreed upon are considered as of yet unknown or not precise. 100 years ago there was disagreement about general hereditary mechanisms in biology, not anymore, now the disagreements are about small details of those mechanisms. Social sciences are the ones with all the "perspectives", but even those are getting better. And being rooted in empirical science actually means exactly that it is objective. The point is not what might be. The point is that the expert has higher probability of making a right call and that is it. Also there is no necessity to eliminate democratic procedures in general, I think a hybrid system would be better. Basically people would vote on the matters of general policy as in those cases the science often has nothing definitive to say. For example people would vote on the level of social services they want and similar stuff and than technocrats would implement the details to the best of their knowledge. Also you can add even some democratic control over the technocrats, but it has to be well thought through so they do not become today's polititians.
I was arguing that science can't predict the consequences of many or most political decisions, and that there is much disagreement. I'm not saying that they don't agree on anything. I just think it's a shame when people expect science to be able to explain everything because it can't.
Rooted in empircal sciences doesn't mean that it is objective, it just means that the data is objective, not the interpretation of the data or the choice of which data was collected. It's perfectly possible for 2 scientists to gather data on the same phenomenon and reach completely different conclusions. The data in social sciences is used more as an argument because the data in itself doesn't really prove anything. Normally it´s used to back up an underlying and more complex theory that doesn't come as a necessity from the data collected (in the cases where quantitative analysis is even used).
I still prefer an expert on a subject over a politician when it comes to making a decision. Just not sure how such a thing could be implemented and who would decide which expert is the best suited for making such decisions. It's not like a democratic decision would be viable because people have no idea which expert on the same subject is the most qualified, and the alternative is some sort of academic peer election but I can't help but think that this would turn the scientific community just as bad as the political one.
|
On August 13 2011 02:25 Jerubaal wrote:
your argument breaks down simply at the point you realize that most experts are oblivious to the grand scheme of things and will only lobby for what they think is best in their fields. You see this in fields where there is no 'result' to measure, like teaching, all the time .
What we want:
Mr Congressman: "Oh gee, economic disaster! What do Mr Economist?"
Mr Economist: "Well this,that, then and so."
Mr Congressman:"Splendid, make it so!"
What we have:
Mr Congressman: "Oh gee, economic disaster! How do I make sure to get re-elected?"
The public: "Derp, we want hurpa derpa now!"
Mr Congressman: "Hurpa derpa it is!"
I do think that Sunprince, mcc and I are in agreement that the politicians have to listen to the experts more. We haven't strictly argued for the type of model that would allow narrow fields of science to simply ignore the bigger picture and do what's "best for their own field of science.". Anyone who understands scientific progress also understands how silly that is since all emerging technologies either are dependant or will be dependant on other developing technologies.
Furthermore, there is always a result to measure - even in teaching. Even if this result is unmeasurable through practical difficulties, the experts could determine, through reasoning, what decision will most likely give a desirable result.
Ultimately what you dream reflects is the belief that 'if only the experts were in charge' society would be awesome. What you don't realize is that there are no easy answers and your longing for a 'technocracy' is just an attempt to ignore wrestling with difficult questions. The idea that you could ignore politicial considerations is a pipe dream.
Set the strawman abold!
|
I have championed this since I first heard about it. Obviously a full technocracy would never work at this moment, a hybrid form would work best I think. 50% of the government chosen by the people, 50% smart people.
Democracy only works when everyone knows what they're voting on, and why. But no one does, with one or two exceptions. Not to mention the politicians themselves more often than not are complete dipshits themselves. Of course, the average voter won't even understand the idea of a technocracy, they will only see that their voting right got withdrawn and as such a hybrid system is needed, at least at first.
I feel that if we as a human race have to have any chance at making major progress, we'll have to stop random citizen #586,235 from being able to vote, and let matters of importance up to the people who know what they are doing.
|
On August 13 2011 02:51 Mecker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 02:25 Jerubaal wrote:
your argument breaks down simply at the point you realize that most experts are oblivious to the grand scheme of things and will only lobby for what they think is best in their fields. You see this in fields where there is no 'result' to measure, like teaching, all the time . What we want: Mr Congressman: "Oh gee, economic disaster! What do Mr Economist?" Mr Economist: "Well this,that, then and so." Mr Congressman:"Splendid, make it so!" What we have: Mr Congressman: "Oh gee, economic disaster! How do I make sure to get re-elected?" The public: "Derp, we want hurpa derpa now!" Mr Congressman: "Hurpa derpa it is!" I do think that Sunprince, mcc and I are in agreement that the politicians have to listen to the experts more. We haven't strictly argued for the type of model that would allow narrow fields of science to simply ignore the bigger picture and do what's "best for their own field of science.". Anyone who understands scientific progress also understands how silly that is since all emerging technologies either are dependant or will be dependant on other developing technologies. Furthermore, there is always a result to measure - even in teaching. Even if this result is unmeasurable through practical difficulties, the experts could determine, through reasoning, what decision will most likely give a desirable result. Show nested quote +Ultimately what you dream reflects is the belief that 'if only the experts were in charge' society would be awesome. What you don't realize is that there are no easy answers and your longing for a 'technocracy' is just an attempt to ignore wrestling with difficult questions. The idea that you could ignore politicial considerations is a pipe dream. Set the strawman abold!
Your first example is extremely illuminating as it brings up a point that I missed- this fallacy that somehow 'science' is unanimous in its opinions and we mere mortals only need obey. Depending on what economic model or philosophy you subscribe to, the answer could be very different. Despite your rosy view of the 'experts', they are no less dependent on ideological considerations than politicians are the average person. You want to trade the ideological leaning of an aggregate for the leanings of a few.
More generally, an economist cannot make the social or political decisions for a society. He can balance the books, but cannot decide whether you should have higher taxes or lower spending, for instance.
My last paragraph discussed the phenomenology of this idea as informed by study and observation of political philosophy, particularly of the last 150 years. I know you kids these days think that you are not connected to anything in the past and invented everything by yourself, but that simply isn't so.
Faruq hits the essential point that empiricist techne is a different sort of knowledge from political knowledge and cannot replace each other. Unfortunately, this is a common problem in modern thought.
|
I think it would be a very beneficial, it would reduce all the clutter and small talk. Government would decide on facts rather than who can argue the best, it would definitely help accelerate the advancement of science and technology. As for the economy it would help as well because science and technology expand markets because it sparks innovation.
|
Your first example is extremely illuminating as it brings up a point that I missed- this fallacy that somehow 'science' is unanimous in its opinions and we mere mortals only need obey. Depending on what economic model or philosophy you subscribe to, the answer could be very different. Despite your rosy view of the 'experts', they are no less dependent on ideological considerations than politicians are the average person. You want to trade the ideological leaning of an aggregate for the leanings of a few. However, don't you agree we'd rather have person A with an PhD and ideology B pulling the ropes than person X working at McDonalds with ideology Y?
More generally, an economist cannot make the social or political decisions for a society. He can balance the books, but cannot decide whether you should have higher taxes or lower spending, for instance. We'd simply have to add some people with knowledge about social subjects to the council.
|
|
|
The problem with the Technocracy is that there's always that psycho, soulless scientist who will decide something horrible at the cost of countless human lives. In fact, Democracy is pretty much the only reason we aren't paying countless human lives every day for the decisions our leaders make at home.
Anyway, technically democracy is "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner", if you will. Now, a Technocratic Republic might work.... As long as the rights of the individual are protected.
|
We already live in a Technocracy, and frankly one can't really argue against the overall results (there are of course always small inefficiencies that people play up into huge things, but don't matter too much in the long-term, e.g. the recent debt-ceiling retardedness). In the US, the Executive Branch is basically filled with technocrats, and they fill in all the details that Legislators are too stupid to think about. Check out the Code of Federal Regulations if you don't believe me. Also, conflicts are adjudicated by judges with the help of competing experts, another form of technocracy. In some cases, those judicial decisions override democratically-enacted legislation, though in truth the judiciary will never go too far from the mainstream.
In other words, Checks and Balances. Congress is the most attuned into public opinion, and in practice exercises the least power.
From what I hear, this is similar with a Parliamentary system, which has a dedicated civil service.
|
On August 13 2011 03:28 darkscream wrote:
The problem with the Technocracy is that there's always that psycho, soulless scientist who will decide something horrible at the cost of countless human lives. In fact, Democracy is pretty much the only reason we aren't paying countless human lives every day for the decisions our leaders make at home.
Anyway, technically democracy is "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner", if you will. Now, a Technocratic Republic might work.... As long as the rights of the individual are protected. Yeah, but obviously one psycho scientist won't get his legislations past the council.
Not to mention he would quickly lose his position.
|
On August 13 2011 03:28 darkscream wrote:
The problem with the Technocracy is that there's always that psycho, soulless scientist who will decide something horrible at the cost of countless human lives. In fact, Democracy is pretty much the only reason we aren't paying countless human lives every day for the decisions our leaders make at home.
Anyway, technically democracy is "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner", if you will. Now, a Technocratic Republic might work.... As long as the rights of the individual are protected.
Really? I'm seeing a few countries involved in wars at the moment that the population doesn't want, and they're democracies.
Given that the idea of a technocracy would be council based, not giving one person ultimate power (because anyone with an education knows that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely) and there would have to be an element of distance that we have in democracy where you cannot be simply bullied by your government.
I think the main idea people have of a technocracy is this: Current democracy, but replace the dim witted, self-serving career politicians with groups of societies brightest in particular fields to organise said fields. A meritocracy rather than a popularity contest, in short.
|
Your first example is extremely illuminating as it brings up a point that I missed- this fallacy that somehow 'science' is unanimous in its opinions and we mere mortals only need obey. Depending on what economic model or philosophy you subscribe to, the answer could be very different. Despite your rosy view of the 'experts', they are no less dependent on ideological considerations than politicians are the average person. You want to trade the ideological leaning of an aggregate for the leanings of a few.
This would be a problem if a single person was responsible for the decision. What we're discussing is having a group of experts discuss all the possibilities and come up with a solution that is most likely, based on current knowledge, the best one. What we're actually doing is simply eliminating ideology from the decision-making by forcing a discussion rather than accepting votes from a public that doesn't have a clue what they're voting for and whose only criteria for the decision is that the politician adheres to the same ideology as the people believe they want.
More generally, an economist cannot make the social or political decisions for a society. He can balance the books, but cannot decide whether you should have higher taxes or lower spending, for instance.
A group of scientists and experts definitely could through thorough research and debate. Can a politician, whose only merit is to be good at collecting votes from a mostly ignorant public, make the social or political decisions for a society?
|
Technocracy would be the best if we could figure out a way to divide power between the different fields, and have people working within those fields elect their representatives.
Really, we should just change the current democratic system to encourage people who aren't career politicians, lawyers, or rich businessmen to enter politics. It's ridiculous that the people appointed to specialized positions often have no experience in those fields. Eg. the Defense Minister should be someone with military service, Health Minister should be a doctor or epidemiologist, Science minister should actually be a scientist, etc.
|
What we're actually doing is simply eliminating ideology from the decision-making
It's quite naive to believe that scientists don't have their own ideology. Science cannot answer normative questions, and political decisions are often simply that. Moreover, what you ask is often just as important as the answer. You could say, "Scientists, give me a solution to solve global warming." The problem is that they are not qualified to tell you whether or not that solution would be calamitous to human well-being in an economic sense.
|
On August 13 2011 04:03 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +What we're actually doing is simply eliminating ideology from the decision-making It's quite naive to believe that scientists don't have their own ideology. Science cannot answer normative questions, and political decisions are often simply that. Moreover, what you ask is often just as important as the answer. You could say, "Scientists, give me a solution to solve global warming." The problem is that they are not qualified to tell you whether or not that solution would be calamitous to human well-being in an economic sense. And that's why there's a bunch of wellrespected economists on the council of course.
|
On August 13 2011 04:18 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 04:03 domovoi wrote:What we're actually doing is simply eliminating ideology from the decision-making It's quite naive to believe that scientists don't have their own ideology. Science cannot answer normative questions, and political decisions are often simply that. Moreover, what you ask is often just as important as the answer. You could say, "Scientists, give me a solution to solve global warming." The problem is that they are not qualified to tell you whether or not that solution would be calamitous to human well-being in an economic sense. And that's why there's a bunch of wellrespected economists on the council of course.
Wellrespected by whom? Are we using a circular peer system where members of the ruling class are well respected by other members of the ruling class?
If we mean wellrespected by the people then just have those people express their respect through a vote and have a democracy just as we have now.
And scientist that appreciates empirical data must agree that Democracies have functioned far better than any other form of government yet tested.
|
On August 13 2011 00:18 paradox_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 00:11 Saji wrote:On August 13 2011 00:05 paradox_ wrote:On August 12 2011 23:59 Effay wrote:
basically anything would be better than democracy Live in a monarchy where you aren't in the favoured class and then say something like "basically anything would be better than a monarchy". Live in a totalitarian state where you disagree with what the dictator wants and then repeat that. At least in a democratic society you're free to say statements like this. I wonder if you've lived outside a democracy at all where you're not in the favoured class/group of people. Democracy is not free. If you are different you will be an outcast of a democratic society if you don't conform to the norm you will have a hard time well me what is being free about that? Being able to say something has absolutely nothing to do with being free Nothing in this world is free. And if freedom of speech isn't something to do with being free, what would be? Anarchy? Edit: Honestly everyone trying to make a point should attempt at making an argument that is articulated further than "democracy sux" & "we're not really free yo"
There is a limit to how free we can be before we impose on others freedoms, democracy is for the most part all about maxing that out
|
On August 13 2011 04:23 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 04:18 Thorakh wrote:On August 13 2011 04:03 domovoi wrote:What we're actually doing is simply eliminating ideology from the decision-making It's quite naive to believe that scientists don't have their own ideology. Science cannot answer normative questions, and political decisions are often simply that. Moreover, what you ask is often just as important as the answer. You could say, "Scientists, give me a solution to solve global warming." The problem is that they are not qualified to tell you whether or not that solution would be calamitous to human well-being in an economic sense. And that's why there's a bunch of wellrespected economists on the council of course. Wellrespected by whom? Are we using a circular peer system where members of the ruling class are well respected by other members of the ruling class? If we mean wellrespected by the people then just have those people express their respect through a vote and have a democracy just as we have now. And scientist that appreciates empirical data must agree that Democracies have functioned far better than any other form of government yet tested. Well respected by the scientific community of course...? The ruling class is the entire scientific community.
|
Could these leading minds and scientist truly make decisions that great majority doesnt like even if it was something smarter to do than what average voter wants (by this i mean they would have to be afraid of revolution by that angry majority), it could become plain old politics and pleasing the crowd quite fast i think.
I suppose there could be ways to adjust to peoples needs and wants when it comes to a situation like this but i just think making average voter smarter is better solution.
|
On August 13 2011 04:25 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 00:18 paradox_ wrote:On August 13 2011 00:11 Saji wrote:On August 13 2011 00:05 paradox_ wrote:On August 12 2011 23:59 Effay wrote:
basically anything would be better than democracy Live in a monarchy where you aren't in the favoured class and then say something like "basically anything would be better than a monarchy". Live in a totalitarian state where you disagree with what the dictator wants and then repeat that. At least in a democratic society you're free to say statements like this. I wonder if you've lived outside a democracy at all where you're not in the favoured class/group of people. Democracy is not free. If you are different you will be an outcast of a democratic society if you don't conform to the norm you will have a hard time well me what is being free about that? Being able to say something has absolutely nothing to do with being free Nothing in this world is free. And if freedom of speech isn't something to do with being free, what would be? Anarchy? Edit: Honestly everyone trying to make a point should attempt at making an argument that is articulated further than "democracy sux" & "we're not really free yo" There is a limit to how free we can be before we impose on others freedoms, democracy is for the most part all about maxing that out
If your are free you don't impose things (how can freedom be imposed on others). I don't know what you mean by freedom in that context? Or are you talking about privileges when you say freedom?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
, In seriousness though one supreme leader, who selects those most suited for the various jobs sounds to best to me
