On September 13 2011 18:08 Macpo wrote: the problem of experts and technocrats is that they think they know what they are doing...
I can't understand why people assume politics may have some scientific solution. Who would believe someone claiming that he/she has made studies and has found the way to organize human life in the most rational way?
Besides that, if knowledge was the guarantee of good politics, 20th century would have been the most positive encouraging political century in history, which obviously has not been the case. How many scientists did work for nazis? biologists (mengele); geographers (Christaller, who wanted to reorganize poland in a "scientific way"); not to mention anthropologists justifying the inferiority of jews, specialists of physics to make good weapons, historians inventing the glorious eternity of the German nation, etc...
Technocrats should just admit that their supposed superior capacities or knowledge are actually extremely limited, if not completely inexistant (the best sign of which being that they don't agree together)
I don't agree with your conclusion. All those nazi experts did a good job in their fields eventhough they acted morally wrong and did evil things.
I can't understand why people assume politics may have some scientific solution. Who would believe someone claiming that he/she has made studies and has found the way to organize human life in the most rational way?
You realise you can study sociology, or politics, history and any other subject that concerns politics, right? We obviously wouldn't have a council full of physicists and biologists...
well I perfectly understand this, but human sciences nowadays have considerably lowered their expectations in regard of how scientific they are... No serious sociologist or political scientist would today claim that he knows how society should be organised in the best way. If some people still have doubts about this, you can just have a look at the incapacity of economists to forsee and deal with the current economic crisis. the fact that there is no scientific consensus regarding the issue is confirming that these sciences don't have a clear rational standard to ground them. Of course, they also bring us a lot of pieces of information here and there, but that's not enough to decide any political judgment overall.
More generally, two things should be noticed: 1. the rationality of human sciences has long been overestimated; and we now realise that things are more complicated. There are reasons to this: for instance, human sciences cannot test their hypotheses as "hard sciences" would (like you cannot simulate 1000 economic crises to see if your model works, you just have a couple of singular historic examples).
2. human scientists are humans after all: they have their interests, their desires, their ideologies (what about the widespread belief (before the crisis) among economists that the free market is the solution to everything?); and these are very strong (as the reference to nazi technocrats shows). This very often make them as blind as most of us. This is a secret to nobody, and there are tons of examples of scientists making wrong assumptions, claiming science where there is only belief (how many doctors once believed that homosexuality was a disease? ), etc.
The point is, technical experts use their expertise in decision-making when they have the power to do so. The big pro for technocracy (not that I'm saying there are no cons), is that you get to have things like doctors shaping the health care reform process, instead of people who don't know anything about it.
You actually have that option with democracy. The populace "could" vote for doctors and engineers.
Technocracy is forcing leaders to be doctors and engineers--not allowing any other option. It is leadership by government decree, government choice, and government desires. It is limiting human options in the hope that "the experts" know better than feeble civilians.
The populace could do that. Or they can vote for free candy. Politicians are the real experts in the field of manipulation the general public. If the public votes for what they believe is the best, then an expert in civil engineering doesn't a stand to be voted to a housing committee, next to the politician who promises free housing for all.
Oh how cute
How very very cute.
You're like what, 19? 20? Almost 21? How simplistic a world view you have
Leaders are either chosen by the people, or they're not. You don't trust voters obviously, so you're hoping for a governmental authority to benevolently choose a benevolent leader.
Yeah... I love imagining worlds where the people in charge are never corrupt. Those ideas are indeed very cute.
Thanks, you're cute as well. Back to the subject at hand though.... 1) Age is irrelevant, unless you're going with the whole "cute line of thought", and trying to date me. Thanks, but I think I'll pass. 2) I'm hoping for people who understand about housing and civil engineering to vote for a leader for a housing committee. Not people who can make the best speeches. 3) Never talked about corruption, and of course this has been mentioned before. I believe it was sunprince that said that corruption will always be a problem, but at least the corrupted officials will know what will be the consequences of their actions. It isn't a solution, but then again - neither is democracy.
I don't agree with your conclusion. All those nazi experts did a good job in their fields eventhough they acted morally wrong and did evil things.
well I wouldn't be so sure of such claim... For instance Walter Christaller's theory in geography, is largely discussed and questioned today.
Moreover, the overall question here remains: should we trust scientists to lead the country (and not only do they find out scientific stuff)? which is why i mentioned this example.
well I perfectly understand this, but human sciences nowadays have considerably lowered their expectations in regard of how scientific they are... No serious sociologist or political scientist would today claim that he knows how society should be organised in the best way. If some people still have doubts about this, you can just have a look at the incapacity of economists to forsee and deal with the current economic crisis. the fact that there is no scientific consensus regarding the issue is confirming that these sciences don't have a clear rational standard to ground them. Of course, they also bring us a lot of pieces of information here and there, but not so much...
Even if this were true (current crisis is made by greed and politicians, not by economists being incapable to see what was going to happen), scientists still know better than normal citizens and as such would be able to make a much better educated vote. Hell, I don't even trust myself to make an educated vote, how am I supposed to trust the general public? I'd much rather have a bunch of educated people make the decisions, however unpopular those decisions may be.
Moreover, the overall question here remains: should we trust scientists to lead the country (and not only do they find out scientific stuff)? which is why i mentioned this example.
If we use a large enough council, the 'evil professors' will quickly be weeded out.
I don't see why a technocracy is mutually exclusive with democracy. Can't we just get the population to vote for a panel of experts to run the country, very similar to how democracy works now, just have people who know something in charge. Like have requirements in order for you to fill a position like degrees or PhDs in a certain field.
Even if this were true (current crisis is made by greed and politicians, not by economists being incapable to see what was going to happen), scientists still know better than normal citizens and as such would be able to make a much better educated vote. Hell, I don't even trust myself to make an educated vote, how am I supposed to trust the general public? I'd much rather have a bunch of educated people make the decisions, however unpopular those decisions may be.
Moreover, the overall question here remains: should we trust scientists to lead the country (and not only do they find out scientific stuff)? which is why i mentioned this example.
If we use a large enough council, the 'evil professors' will quickly be weeded out.
I think I strongly disagree on a few things here
1. economists do have a responsibility in the crisis, for many of them at least, as they advocated for deregulation of economy, and made some many promises on how the market would self regulate itself... For instance, assuming the Homo oeconomicus is a rational being appears to be false: many actors take wrong decisions (underestimating the risk of junk bonds for instance) because they don't have information or don't take it into consideration rationally enough.
2. scientists do not know better than normal citizens, when it comes to real politics, 1. because political decisions are not only a matter of knowledge, but also of values ( for instance: which do u value most: equality or growth? That's not a scientific question, yet it is a political one, of utter importance). 2. because it then implies their real life, as for everyone else, and "scientists" are very prompt to hide and forget things. being granted a job in high administration, being paid thousands by big companies is often enough to make people change their minds, unfortunately.
3. "If we use a large enough council, the 'evil professors' will quickly be weeded out." Why would that be the case? I am afraid this is an article of faith, ungrounded optimism...
1. economists do have a responsibility in the crisis, for many of them at least, as they advocated for deregulation of economy, and made some many promises on how the market would self regulate itself... For instance, assuming the Homo oeconomicus is a rational being appears to be false: many actors take wrong decisions (underestimating the risk of junk bonds for instance) because they don't have information or don't take it into consideration rationally enough.
Regardless of who was wrong or who was right, economists still know better than your average Joe and are therefore better suited for making decisions.
2. scientists do not know better than normal citizens, when it comes to real politics, 1. because political decisions are not only a matter of knowledge, but also of values ( for instance: which do u value most: equality or growth? That's not a scientific question, yet it is a political one, of utter importance). 2. because it then implies their real life, as for everyone else, and "scientists" are very prompt to hide and forget things. being granted a job in high administration, being paid thousands by big companies is often enough to make people change their minds, unfortunately.
I thought I already adressed this? There are more sciences than just the beta ones. And even if you are still not convinced, this problem is easily adressed by using some form of tecno/demo-cracy hybrid.
3. "If we use a large enough council, the 'evil professors' will quickly be weeded out." Why would that be the case? I am afraid this is an article of faith, ungrounded optimism...
As it stands now do you see lots of scientists wanting to perform horrible experiments on humans? No, of course not. People like that would get no chance.
I don't want to be rude, but I am afraid you don't give much justification for your assumptions beyond rhetorical claims assuming evidence not everybody shares... (like the word "of course", which doesn't show anything).
But I guess that only shows how difficult rational discussion is (if it ever existed), especially when it comes to politics... same for scientists !
A doctor must study medicine for many years then get a license before he is allowed to treat people. A bus driver needs a license before he is allowed to take responsibility for passengers lives. Every job with social responsibility requires a confirmation that a person is ready for it.
What does a president need to govern a country? What are the requirements for the president license if existed? What are the areas George Bush is good at, for example. We can consider hem as a good president, considering the fact of reelection.
On September 13 2011 19:28 Macpo wrote: I don't want to be rude, but I am afraid you don't give much justification for your assumptions beyond rhetorical claims assuming evidence not everybody shares... (like the word "of course", which doesn't show anything).
But I guess that only shows how difficult rational discussion is (if it ever existed), especially when it comes to politics... same for scientists !
Evidence not everybody shares? Tell me the last time you heard about a scientist performing, or wanting to perform horrible experiments (excluding WW2). That's right, you've probably never heard of it, if that isn't empirical evidence, then what is?
And besides, are you postulating that the majority of scientists are evil bastards who seek to perform terrifying experiments on humans? Why am I even responding to this...
Thorac go look for operation Paperclip, or watch Human Resources 'Social Engineering in the 20th Century'. The fact of the matter is that groups of scientist have been doing awful things and will keep doing so with the current economic system paradigm that we have.
On September 13 2011 19:28 Macpo wrote: I don't want to be rude, but I am afraid you don't give much justification for your assumptions beyond rhetorical claims assuming evidence not everybody shares... (like the word "of course", which doesn't show anything).
But I guess that only shows how difficult rational discussion is (if it ever existed), especially when it comes to politics... same for scientists !
Evidence not everybody shares? Tell me the last time you heard about a scientist performing, or wanting to perform horrible experiments (excluding WW2). That's right, you've probably never heard of it, if that isn't empirical evidence, then what is?
And besides, are you postulating that the majority of scientists are evil bastards who seek to perform terrifying experiments on humans? Why am I even responding to this...
Wait, who regulates business? Businessmen? Economists?
Like I want to know that businesses can't put random crap in my food or lie about their ingredients.
The fact is in most cases the experts are the ones making decisions. We have boards of health professionals setting standards and practices for treatments. We have engineering boards setting standards for internet protocols, electricity, and construction. In America we have a lot of private organizations controlling things because they are the 'experts.' Politicians really don't decide everything.
On September 13 2011 19:28 Macpo wrote: I don't want to be rude, but I am afraid you don't give much justification for your assumptions beyond rhetorical claims assuming evidence not everybody shares... (like the word "of course", which doesn't show anything).
But I guess that only shows how difficult rational discussion is (if it ever existed), especially when it comes to politics... same for scientists !
Evidence not everybody shares? Tell me the last time you heard about a scientist performing, or wanting to perform horrible experiments (excluding WW2). That's right, you've probably never heard of it, if that isn't empirical evidence, then what is?
And besides, are you postulating that the majority of scientists are evil bastards who seek to perform terrifying experiments on humans? Why am I even responding to this...
Yes, let's let the most elite of the elite rule us completely... All that would happen is that instead of investing in law degrees we'd invest in Science/Technological degrees...
Maybe the reference to nazis is not the best way to go, as it brings down the debate to its most extreme. No need to focus on that: there are many intermediary situations, between "horrible experiments" of nazis and virgin innocent scientists, which raise reasonable doubts on whether scientists should lead our politics.
The existence of corrupted scientists (have you heard of the recent mediator scandal in france, where it appeared that some nocive medicine (apparently responsible for many deaths) has been given by doctors for years, with intense lobbying of laboratoires Servier?) or more simply, by the fact that many honest scientists just make very bad political decisions, all the time, even in their supposed field of competence (and this not only because they make mistakes, but because they have interests, etc). seems to me enough to argue against technocracy.
Moreover, we should not neglect the fact that knowledge being a priviledge of the upper class, such government would certainly lead to very elitist, antidemocratic, inegalitarian politics - back to 19th century where poor people were supposed incapable to discuss about politics, because they were ignorant savages - and where people supposed to know (the rich) were only defending their interest in the name of "necessity" and "science".
The administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson theorizes that technocrats are primarily driven by their cognitive "problem-solution mindsets" and only in part by particular occupational group interests.
In other words, benevolent leaders. Yup. Nothing at all like a dictatorship to have a government system where we hope that the technocrats aren't corrupt
You fail reading comprehension forever. The point there is that technocrats by nature make decisions based on their expertise instead of being corrupt. All the available research shows this is the case, because the people who study something for a decade are not like other people.
You also still have no idea what a dictatorship is, do you? If you can go to school and join the ranks of the people in charge of something, it's not a dictatorship. It's a meritocracy.
On September 13 2011 15:59 lorkac wrote: Technocracy is forcing leaders to be doctors and engineers--not allowing any other option. It is leadership by government decree, government choice, and government desires. It is limiting human options in the hope that "the experts" know better than feeble civilians.
History is full of examples which prove that the feeble civilians really don't know better. People are idiots. The political system in the United States right now is a perfect example.
On September 13 2011 16:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Experts are already often used to craft legislation, however. Plus government agencies are filled with experts who then enforce the laws / draft regulations based upon the laws. For example the Fed has great economists, the CBO great accountants, the FDA great doctors etc and all these agencies have the power to make important decisions.
Indeed. Unfortunately, they only advise Congress and enforce its decisions, meaning they have extremely limited power to actually decide policy. A technocracy would move towards the direction where they have true political power instead of merely having discretion as the instruments of that power.
EPT
