Can scientists govern Society?

[Ouroboros]

From another thread:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=111403

 

...

If you are one of those many who think that as soon as you can get all of those foolish and hateful Christians out of the way, then science and reasoning will simply step up to plate and make the world a better place, then you have some SERIOUS reconsidering to do. Science CAN NOT govern society, even if they wanted to. And real scientists don't. If you want the proof of exactly WHY they can't then start a thread on "Can scientists govern Society" and I will quickly show you exactly why they CAN'T and what MUST happen instead. You won't like where your nay-saying must lead.

...

 

-edit-

 

Just a footnote, I didn't raise the question, Ssel did. But I thougth it was an interesting question that could be discussed, and personally I'm not sure what to think yet. This never occurred to me to ask...

[Taphophilia]

From another thread:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=111403

 

...

If you are one of those many who think that as soon as you can get all of those foolish and hateful Christians out of the way, then science and reasoning will simply step up to plate and make the world a better place, then you have some SERIOUS reconsidering to do. Science CAN NOT govern society, even if they wanted to. And real scientists don't. If you want the proof of exactly WHY they can't then start a thread on "Can scientists govern Society" and I will quickly show you exactly why they CAN'T and what MUST happen instead. You won't like where your nay-saying must lead.

...

 

What kind of Scientist? There are many different types of Scientists. What about Political Scientists or Sociologists? If you mean the Chem or Math type scientists then I doubt that they would have the Charisma or to participate in a campaign.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Free Men with arms cannot be "governed".

 

Best that may happen is that they compact or contract together and agree to what distance they will allow theselves to be governed.

 

If they are smart, they will tell the prospective Proctors to FOAD and continue along with their lives..

 

k, Freeman, L

[Vigile]

If you are one of those many who think that as soon as you can get all of those foolish and hateful Christians out of the way, then science and reasoning will simply step up to plate and make the world a better place, then you have some SERIOUS reconsidering to do. ...

 

*not directed at you Hans*

 

If you are one of those binary thinking people who think there are only two answers to every question then you have some reconsidering to do.

 

Who said science is the answer to the world's problems? Science is the method that allows us to try and understand the world around us. It is based on empirical evidence.

 

You imply that we need religion to govern. I protest. Religion gives us only one set of standards and is not the ultimate source of morality. The question you allude to is far more complex to provide you with a simplified answer.

[Ouroboros]

I think Ssel is not necessarely proposing a religious leadership, but maybe he's alluding to a philosophical and "spiritual" in the sense of engaged and open minded, but not the classic scientist.

 

Every politician that ends up with control over a country have very strong opinions about things, and about themselves, and rarely are that open minded for alternative solutions to problems.

 

The real question would be "what kind of person is best suited to lead a country?" (Which could lead to different answers depending on the culture and the people.)

[Poonis]

With a nod to Nivek, I wonder why it is Ssel presupposes I need to be, or desire to be, governed in the first place.

[All Gods Fail]

The whole point is moot, anyway, at least in a democracy like ours. (We are still a democracy, right?) Besides, it was learned men of the Enlightenment that came up with American democracy - quite a few would-be scientists in their ranks.

 

If a 'Scientism' party got underway and managed to appeal to the mass of voters, we'd have scientists in charge.

 

Unless we voted them out or impeached them, anyway.

[pandora]

The first question that came to my mind was "what kind of scientist?" too.

[Ouroboros]

Every scientist is a sort of philosopher, and the idea to have a philosopher king is old and not an impossible idea either. Yes, the question is, what kind of scientist?

 

Wouldn't a professor in sociology have a pretty clear understanding of how people act in groups and what to do? Every president need to have some ability to understand sociology, otherwise they'll be completely unempathical and disconnected from society.

 

So where is the line, "knowing too much", become a problem for a president? (Well, we haven't seen that as a problem with the current! )

[Ssel]

Hey there Hans, trying to wear me out, aren’t you

 

Think about what a scientist IS. On what foundation did science rise? It was on the foundation thought that nothing is to be accepted as fact until it can be demonstrated in a controlled manner. The scientist is obligated to never stray outside what has been demonstrated except as theory to be proven at a later date if possible.

 

So, now, let’s say that you have a committee of scientists who have stepped up to govern a society. Exactly how are true scientists supposed to say what kinds of things will lead to something better in a 10 generations unless they have demonstrated it? Which laws can be demonstrated as the scientifically acurate laws which will always lead to exactly where science has demonstrated? How many years would it take for a scientist to know that this set of laws will always do a better job than that set? Just think of all of the sets he would have to study in a controlled environment before he recommended even one.

 

Think about how long it takes for the FDA to release a new drug or study the effects of a new virus. And not being the type of scientist sticking to demonstrations for his foundation, leads to which other kind of “scientist”? One of speculation of course. But then exactly what makes him a scientist and any different than all those before to struggle to maintain control of a population?

 

Also, realize that politics is a VERY nasty game of serpents doing anything that works so as to gain more influence and power. In such an environment and contest, how would you guess a common-sense type of scientist would fair? In pretty short order, the altruistic scientist would find himself without a clue as to how to defend against the mass of deceptive trickery from so many opponents. Politics is a game of survival of the fittest. A man who thinks in terms of being ever so careful to ensure that each step he takes is precisely correct, is going to have to become a serious genius to also think in terms of how to persuade millions of people and opposing world organizations. Science oriented people have gone into politics in the past, but those were times when the rules of the game were far more limited. The rule today is “nothing is a sin, if you don’t get caught.”

 

And then also consider exactly what you think all of the world organizations elsewhere are going to be doing during this time? Just sitting back and saying to themselves, “Gee, I hope they elect a good guy.”? Not hardly, Islam and Israel have VERY serious influence and concerns for controlling what America thinks and does. The American entertainment and news media have become almost totally controlled by the Jewry. The Muslims have set up quite a variety of organizations solely to provide influence in the USA. Do you think these people are going to just roll over and let not use every trick known to mankind to attempt control of America? How is the altruistic scientist going to handle such a concentration of political and mind bending trickery from such extremely wealthy and aged organizations?

 

The scientist in the US has been somewhat protected against having to deal with social politics so that he can concentrate on his expertise. What are called political scientist are merely people who study politics and do very little in the way of maintaining a solid foundation of demonstratable fact. Their specialty is “how to provide influence”. The psychologist and the psychiatrist are both in similar positions. Their specialty is how to influence people. Who is deciding and ensuring that the “people” are not merely being blinded by such experts? What keeps them from losing the trust of the people?

 

Even when the people accept that scientists really know a great many accurate details, their ability to actually govern depends on an entirely different set of concerns.

 

The real scientist would be displaced in a matter or weeks. … But by Whom?

[Ouroboros]

Hey there Hans, trying to wear me out, aren’t you

Of course! You have such a different view on some things, that I need to pick your brain, and let others do it too. Just so I can get some kind of hold of what you believe (and not).

[thomas]

Years ago, people in management theory has conducted studies to find the best traits for a leader of a business. But such studies has never lead to a clear result. And today the current "wisdom" is, that the requirements for a leader depends on the actual situation. A leader who is a success in one context can be a totally failure in another.

 

For a business, factors that may influence the choice of leader are among others the complexity of the market (technologies, legislation etc.), how fast the market is changing,, type of people employed (motivation to work, culture etc.), size of the organization and if there is an immediate threat to the survival of the organization. For example, there is an enormous difference between leading a group of soldiers in battle and leading a research team in a medical company.

 

But leadership position does also have a lot of things in common. Just to mention a one thing, the leader needs to live with ambiguity and to take decisions, although (s)he only has uncertain uncomplete information. When talking about top positions (in business or for a country), intuition (whatever that is) and the ability to grasp the big picture is essential.

 

But the point is that there a many ways to carry out an leadership assignment. There are many ways to gather information and try to grasp the big picture, there are many ways to plan and set goals, there are many ways to influence other people, there are many ways to control etc. And what works, depends on the situation.

 

In this tread I think it is important to distinguish between scientists as persons and scientific methods. It is clear, that a leader will have to make decision, that are not scientific based, but who says that scientists cannot do that?

[Poonis]

Ssel,

 

what have you to support your presupposition that one (1) needs to be, or (2) desires to be, governed?

[Amethyst]

There is nothing in the constitution that says a scientist can't be the American president someday. The problem is that in today's society, few people value intelligence. If you are good at science, you are outcast as a "geek."

 

Instead, people value physical attractiveness, extroversion, wealth, athletic ability, sense of humor, spirituality, etc. The characteristics of most scientists are almost the opposite, so they are valued in our society only for the cool gadgets and stuff they can make for the rest of us to use.

 

When Americans grow up in general and stop acting like school kids and stop shunning intelligent people, maybe then it'll happen. But until then, we'll continue to get standard politicians as our president.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Ssel,

 

what have you to support your presupposition that one (1) needs to be, or (2) desires to be, governed?

 

Ssel...

 

Before one can have the intelligencia govern, you must first kill the human wolves..

 

For the Proctors to have a vast body of gentle mind numbed sheep to graze on the sweet feed of forgetfulness.

 

There cannot be a corporate memory of what Freedom was, or was even like. Must be bread out of those being goverened, lest the Proctors piss the sheep with teeth and in turn be replaced.

 

Someday, long after my git is gone from Earth this might happen, but bubba, trust me, I am raising a young Freeman so that thoughts and practices of individual Freedom do not vanish..

 

As Poonis said above, why do you pre-supposed I and mine need to be goverened?

 

k, loading Vetos daily, L

[crazy-tiger]

The scientist is obligated to never stray outside what has been demonstrated except as theory to be proven at a later date if possible.

That will come as one heck of a surprise to scientists the world over... If scientists had to do that, then we'd still be stuck in mud huts cowering from the lightning.

 

Maybe you should reconsider what you believe a scientist is and does...

[Mythra]

Thank the goddess that our country was founded in such a way that the religionists cannot find an angle to assume complete control. (Although they are trying)..

 

I can't imagine a country where the Falwell's and Robertson's and Dobson's and Meyers were given unlimited powers to make and enforce laws.

 

I'd trust someone like Carl Sagan's judgment to make sound decisions based on rational thinking any day over those buffoons of religiosity.

[Ro-bear]

Who ever said he wanted scientists to govern? Scientists should hold sway in matters of science.

 

If a false dichotomy of rule by scientists or theologians is being presented, I'd go with the scientists. But that's not how it works. I'd like to know what ssel's point is here. Is he flogging a straw man?

[Ssel]

... And today the current "wisdom" is, that the requirements for a leader depends on the actual situation. A leader who is a success in one context can be a totally failure in another.

That is not only true but much more significant than implied here.

In this tread I think it is important to distinguish between scientists as persons and scientific methods.

If one separates the scientific method which led to the reliability of science from a person called a "scientist", then in what way is he a scientist?

 

The only thing distinguishing a scientist from anyone else was his adherence to demonstrated fact. The insistence in method kept him free from superstition and/or religion. But now if he is not going to do that, but still be called a scientist just to gain popular appeal, then he is already on the road to deception.

 

I think the intent is to have a group of leaders who do not use deception nor fall to it easily. The scientist is seen as such a character. But when the person no longer uses the method of the scientist, then exactly what DOES he use in it's place?

 

Even when all religion is removed from a society, the vast majority are still going to be superstitious, in which case, how is the non-scientific scientist going to truly represent these people? The serious scientist would have to ban all gambling because such games are mathematical con-games and ban all lotteries.

 

The entertainment industry uses subtle persuasion to present a false reality so as to bring about a different social norm for the next generation. But this is deception. Is the non-scientific scientist leader going to be able to agree with such manipulations? If not, then all entertainment must be altered once again and probably become very boring as they would have to merely show what is currently real so as to not deceive.

 

Once a scientist stops being someone who can be trusted to truly represent ONLY the tested facts, then he becomes exactly as all the others caught in a power struggle for deceptive control. The scientific method was the only thing that freed him of such.

 

 

 

 

 

As Poonis said above, why do you pre-supposed I and mine need to be goverened?

The need to be governed wasn't the question, issue, nor proposal.

 

The question was "Can scientists govern a society?"

 

The need or lack of need for such is a separate discussion.

My position was that they CAN NOT. I am not proposing they they try. I believe that real scientist would never try.

[Cerise]

Even when all religion is removed from a society, the vast majority are still going to be superstitious, in which case, how is the non-scientific scientist going to truly represent these people? The serious scientist would have to ban all gambling because such games are mathematical con-games and ban all lotteries.

 

And where did that leap of logic come from?

 

The entertainment industry uses subtle persuasion to present a false reality so as to bring about a different social norm for the next generation. But this is deception. Is the non-scientific scientist leader going to be able to agree with such manipulations? If not, the all entertainment must be altered once again and probably become very boring as they would have to merely show what is currently real so as to not deceive.

 

Are you suggesting that TRUE scientists are opposed to going to the movies or reading books because they are works of fiction?

[crazy-tiger]

The only thing distinguishing a scientist from anyone else was his adherence to demonstrated fact. The insistence in method kept him free from superstition and/or religion. But now if he is not going to do that, but still be called a scientist just to gain popular appeal, then he is already on the road to deception.

I adhere to demonstrated fact, so I must be a scientist... I follow the scientific method, so I must be a scientist... I am free from superstition/religion, so I must be a scientist...

But I'm not a scientist.

 

On the other hand, there are scientists who are religious, there are scientists who do NOT adhere to demonstrated fact... so they must NOT be scientists.

 

Questioning what is known, going beyond demonstrated facts... THOSE are the hallmarks of a scientist.

 

 

 

 

I said it before, and I'll say it again...

 

You should reconsider what you believe a scientist to be and what they do.

[thomas]

THe new German chancellor Angela Merkel is a scientist.

 

Science background

 

Born in Hamburg, Angela Merkel was only a couple of months old when her father, a Lutheran pastor, was given a parish in a small town in East Germany.

 

She grew up in a rural area outside Berlin in the communist east, and showed a great talent for maths, science and languages.

 

She earned a doctorate in physics but later worked as a chemist at a scientific academy in East Berlin.

 

In 1989 she became involved in the burgeoning democracy movement, and, after the Berlin Wall came down, she got a job as government spokeswoman following the first democratic elections.

 

She joined the CDU two months before the reunification of Germany and within three months she was in the Kohl cabinet as minister for women and youth.

 

In her political career to date she has outlasted four political bosses, in the east and west, and is the only prominent Ossi (easterner) to have survived in the CDU leadership.

 

She is married to a chemistry professor from Berlin, Joachim Sauer. The couple do not have any children

 

 

(from

BBC News)

[Amethyst]

THe new German chancellor Angela Merkel is a scientist.

 

Oh? I didn't know that. Well, good. Maybe this is the start of some much-needed change in Western society.

 

Are you suggesting that TRUE scientists are opposed to going to the movies or reading books because they are works of fiction?

 

Hey, don't forget science fiction.

[crazy-tiger]

Are you suggesting that TRUE scientists are opposed to going to the movies or reading books because they are works of fiction?

Hey, don't forget science fiction.

Issac Asimov... very famous scientist who also wrote a lot of fiction.

 

 

 

 

Ssel... You should reconsider what you believe a scientist to be and what you believe they do.

[Ssel]

In 1989 she became involved in the burgeoning democracy movement, and, after the Berlin Wall came down, she got a job as government spokeswoman following the first democratic elections.

 

She joined the CDU two months before the reunification of Germany and within three months she was in the Kohl cabinet as minister for women and youth.

 

In her political career to date ...

I would propose that this is when she stopped being a scientist and became a political activist.

To claim that a person who once was a scientist could never be any else would be rather silly. A democrat can become a republican. A pastor can become an atheist.

 

The question is can a person remain a scientist (traditional type) and still govern.

 

Without knowing this particular person, we can't know how far she has left science behind to pursue her political career. Did anyone ask her if she believes in a God? Perhaps she does, so is she still a scientist? Would she lie and say that she did just to gain more votes? Would she still be a true scientist if she did lie about such?

 

Science is based on demonstratable facts. Politics is based on public persuasion. Public persuasion can only be demonstrated in controlled environments within a limited amount of time. Such limits prevents any real science from being able to come into play simply because the scientist, being still a scientist, could not setup his hypothesis and demonstrate his theory such as to hold to only the facts. It is merely a question of impracticality. One can not stay within the realm of demonstrated facts and deal with the immediate needs of governing a nation.