Can scientists govern Society?

[Guest Guest_serenitynow_*]

Can scientists govern society?

 

Yes

 

Pointless to argue. Just because one isn't a scientist doesn't mean that one doesn't have values and/or integrity. Apparently many religious leaders don't have value and/or integrity despite having a god belief.

[crazy-tiger]

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.

But it's perfectly ok to claim that a scientist cannot be something else AT THE SAME TIME!

You've already claimed that the only difference between a scientist and ordinary people it that scientists adhere "to demonstrated fact."

Apart from the fact that it was completely wrong, you also managed to claim that ordinary people DON'T adhere to demonstrated fact!

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?

A scientist doesn't have to be an Atheist... unless you're saying that only Atheists adhere to demonstrated facts?

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.

SCIENTISTS DON'T STAY WITHIN THE REALM OF DEMONSTRATED FACTS! Otherwise, we wouldn't discover ANYTHING. They do, however, stick to the scientific method.

PUBLIC PERSUASION IS ALSO BASED ON DEMONSTRATED FACTS! Or are you claiming it's based on any old bollocks that someone comes up with? Incredibly, they use the scientific method in that too... because

POLITICS IS PART OF SOCIOLOGICAL SCIENCE! Based on demonstrated facts and scientific method.

 

Ssel... it's extremely easy for a scientist to enter politics and remain a scientist... Hell, there's even this little thing called Political Sciences.

 

 

 

Can I just suggest that you, 1) learn what a scientist is and 2) learn more about the Political and Sociological Sciences...

 

Or you can continue to make some very foolish posts... your choice.

[Asimov]

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.

 

 

Since when does govern = control? A government is meant to uphold moral freedom, not suppress it. Entertainment is just that, entertainment.

[Hero of Hyrule]

Since when does govern = control?

 

Since the Dawn of time.

Not all forms of control are as worse(Or good with some people) as others but they are still control.

[crazy-tiger]

Since when does govern = control?

 

Since the Dawn of time.

Not all forms of control are as worse(Or good with some people) as others but they are still control.

I have to disagree...

 

Governments are there to govern the country on behalf of the populace... They are there to be the voice of the populace... They are there to follow the populaces wishes.

 

 

At least, that's what it's supposed to be like in a Democracy...

[Ssel]

If you wish to redefine a "scientist" to be something more to your liking, then have at it. But this discussion was started on a comment made using the traditional definition, so the conversation must be restarted with your definition.

 

I suspect that you would prefer to define a scientist as merely someone who doesn't believe in God. That leaves a lot of territory. You might want to throw in a little about being schooled in science as well. But try to remember that a great many of the traditional scientists accepted God, went to church, the whole bit.

 

I personally think your getting yourself in serious trouble by allowing the definition to drift into anything else, but have at it.

 

At least, that's what it's supposed to be like in a Democracy...

Yes, SUPPOSED to be... Such a nice memory

[Guest JPD]

Can scientists govern Society?

 

As opposed to what? Religious leaders? I really don't get the question.

[Hero of Hyrule]

Governments are there to govern the country on behalf of the populace... They are there to be the voice of the populace... They are there to follow the populaces wishes.

 

 

At least, that's what it's supposed to be like in a Democracy...

 

But it's not reality all the time and there have always been governments who controlled people. How many British really wanted to figh over a set of islands with virtually nothing but sheep against Argentinians(Who were mad for attacking a set of islands with virtually nothing more than sheep)

 

I imagine most soldiers not really wanting to shootor be shot, but they know it's their duty. To me, it is a form of control is the individual doesn't win anything with it. Of course some really want to fight.

 

At a smaller scale governments tend to do things wich are used to control people in some sort of way.

 

First they build a garage to easy up finding a place to park the car. At first it's free. After a year a lot of parking space is removed because there's a garage, right? A year later it costs too much to keep the garage in shape so it's going to cost money. That's fair right? If you use it you must pay...

 

Every small step is logical and fair. In a whole it is a very nasty trick.

 

Things like this have always been done by those in power. It's control to a degree. Some control is needed to remain good as a nation and some control is just bad. Depends on the circumstances.

[Guest Guest_serenitynow_*]

If you wish to redefine a "scientist" to be something more to your liking, then have at it. But this discussion was started on a comment made using the traditional definition, so the conversation must be restarted with your definition.

 

Scientist 1 : a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator

 

You might want to throw in a little about being schooled in science as well. But try to remember that a great many of the traditional scientists accepted God, went to church, the whole bit.

 

And a lot didn't believe in Christian God

[crazy-tiger]

If you wish to redefine a "scientist" to be something more to your liking, then have at it. But this discussion was started on a comment made using the traditional definition, so the conversation must be restarted with your definition.

 

I suspect that you would prefer to define a scientist as merely someone who doesn't believe in God. That leaves a lot of territory. You might want to throw in a little about being schooled in science as well. But try to remember that a great many of the traditional scientists accepted God, went to church, the whole bit.

I know what you suspect, and I know that you're wrong with that suspicion...

 

The only definition I'm using is the definition YOU provided.

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.

THAT it the definition I'm following, and it's the same one you are using. (like that's a surprise... it's your definition)

Am I redefining it to my liking? No. Am I trying to redefine it as someone who doesn't believe in god? No.

Bear that in mind before you start throwing such accusations around.

 

Oh, and don't you DARE try to remind me that "a great many of the traditional scientists accepted God, went to church, the whole bit." YOUR DEFINITION EXCULDED ALL OF THEM!

I personally think your getting yourself in serious trouble by allowing the definition to drift into anything else, but have at it.

 

Show me where I've changed the definition... When you fail, I expect an appology.

[Ssel]

I would assert that the only absolute need of a government is in the area of arbitration. Often there are issues that can not be resolved by any reasoning and thus an arbitration is needed merely to prevent conflict. An example might be who goes first at a 4-way stop. Another might be an issue where votes are tied. Merely flipping a coin can be the arbitration tool, as long as it is agreed upon by the participants.

 

I generally agree that to "govern" merely means to limit within set bounds, not to control such that fixed results are predetermined by the controller.

[Asimov]

Since when does govern = control?

 

Since the Dawn of time.

Not all forms of control are as worse(Or good with some people) as others but they are still control.

 

I would disagree with that as well. I don't think a government should have much say in the lives of people, but to allow us all to live our lives by upholding moral freedoms and civil rights in terms of governing. Aside from that, I don't see any other use for a government with regards to "control".

[thomas]

 

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?

 

 

Ssel

 

I think you are saying, that there a no scientific models for running a society. Running a society is not a science, but a leadership task.

 

And if this is what you are saying, I can only agree with you. But I don't think a scientific background is not irrelevant for a leadership position.

[Amethyst]

 

I would disagree with that as well. I don't think a government should have much say in the lives of people, but to allow us all to live our lives by upholding moral freedoms and civil rights in terms of governing. Aside from that, I don't see any other use for a government with regards to "control".

 

I agree with you in principle, but it depends on the "moral freedoms" though. What if you have a government like Iran, which dictates what is called moral, regardless of whether it actually is? For example, the lifelong shaming of women simply for having been born female. They call it moral, when in reality, it is just another form of hatred given the excuse of religious law.

[Kryten]

I would assert that the only absolute need of a government is in the area of arbitration. Often there are issues that can not be resolved by any reasoning and thus an arbitration is needed merely to prevent conflict. An example might be who goes first at a 4-way stop. Another might be an issue where votes are tied. Merely flipping a coin can be the arbitration tool, as long as it is agreed upon by the participants.

 

I generally agree that to "govern" merely means to limit within set bounds, not to control such that fixed results are predetermined by the controller.

I think the 4-way stop is a bad example of the need for government. I think it is a GREAT example of people co-operating without the need for control or arbitration. Thousands of Many years ago the protocol for negotiating a 4-way stop was established (and thus adapted into nearly all traffic codes) whereby motorists would TAKE TURNS so that all get through relatively quickly. The protocol includes who goes first when two approach simultaneously. Most 4-way stop intersections are less congested than ones with lights, even with the same amount of traffic. It is a great example of what people can do without someone else controlling them.

 

I also disagree with your concept of what a scientist is/believes. And do you cease to be whatever you are because you posted here, which makes you only a poster?

 

Another error is to think that scientists must disallow gambling. What they would probably do is EDUCATE the public, then OWN the casinos (or whatever) in order to use the profits for the betterment of society.

[Ssel]

Define what you want the word "scientist" to mean so that conversation make sense.

[Asimov]

 

I would disagree with that as well. I don't think a government should have much say in the lives of people, but to allow us all to live our lives by upholding moral freedoms and civil rights in terms of governing. Aside from that, I don't see any other use for a government with regards to "control".

 

I agree with you in principle, but it depends on the "moral freedoms" though. What if you have a government like Iran, which dictates what is called moral, regardless of whether it actually is? For example, the lifelong shaming of women simply for having been born female. They call it moral, when in reality, it is just another form of hatred given the excuse of religious law.

 

And therein comes the problem of choosing a proper leader or having a proper leader.

[crazy-tiger]

Define what you want the word "scientist" to mean so that conversation make sense.

Since you don't want to say who you are directing this comment at, we're just going to have to assume... going by the comment and previous ones, I'd guess it's directed at me. Am I right?

 

If I am, then I will define (for the purposes of this topic) a scientist as such...

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.

Do you have a problem with this definition? Is that definition incorrect? Does the conversation fail to make sense with that definition? Just remember, it's YOUR definition of a scientist and it's the definition you started the conversation with...

 

While you're thinking about those questions, how about you show me where I redefined "scientist" and what it was redefined to... when you realise that it wasn't, will you appologise for your unwarranted accusation of my attempting to do so?

[Amethyst]

Why not just change the title of the topic to "Can Atheists Govern Society?" since that is probably what the poster originally meant?

[Light_of_Reason]

I would assert that the only absolute need of a government is in the area of arbitration. Often there are issues that can not be resolved by any reasoning and thus an arbitration is needed merely to prevent conflict. An example might be who goes first at a 4-way stop. Another might be an issue where votes are tied. Merely flipping a coin can be the arbitration tool, as long as it is agreed upon by the participants.

 

I generally agree that to "govern" merely means to limit within set bounds, not to control such that fixed results are predetermined by the controller.

 

I would agree with the assertion that the primary need of a government is arbitration. There are other needs, but by and large, arbitration is the most predominant of them.

 

And arbitration is not needed to prevent conflict. Arbitration is very poor at preventing conflict. In actuality, arbitration resolves conflict. Sometimes the resolution is favors one side completely over the other. Other times, it compromises. And at yet other times, it works out semantical or definitional difficulties held by the involved parties. At no point does arbitration prevent the conflict from happening. It just brings the conflict to a satisfactory and usually agreeable resolution.

 

Learning what arbitration is and is not can be easily done by either taking a couple of management courses or actually becoming a manager. I recommend them both if you have the disposition not to harm people for sometimes trivial and sometimes great conflicts.

[Megistias]

Define what you want the word "scientist" to mean so that conversation make sense.

 

 

Hopefully it would include Economists and Public Policy Analysts.

[Asimov]

I still don't see how someone driven by reason and intellect would be unfit to govern. It doesn't seem as if the Religious side of things has worked very well.

[spamandham]

I'm much too lazy to read through all this. Can scientists govern society? Yes, and no. The answer is the same for anyone else. It all depends on what you define as the success criteria. If success=not chaos, then it isn't clear society benefits significantly from any form of central governing. Simultaneoulsy, it isn't clear that any form of central governing guarantees a lack of chaos. Even the most successful forms of government have lasted only briefly from the perspective of the duration of our species.

[Amanda]

It seems to me that a scientist is one who investigates to find and determine outcomes of methods and principles, in an objective manner. A leader is one who skillfully utilizes this information and implements them in such a manner that can muster collective support from the community, to follow him/her in regards to the leader's agenda.

 

Doesn't a professional scientist place all their efforts into true scientific investigation with no agenda? Having an 'agenda' mindset would negate the cherished position of 'objective' observations. Can a political leader lead with an objective mind, having no agenda? I think it would be hard for a scientist's professional mindset to become an agenda seeking political leader, yet I'm sure a transition can be done very carefully. Can one professionally hold both positions at the same time?

[Amethyst]

I recently wrote a short SF story where the govt. in power was a Technocracy. The leader was a bad guy who wanted power for himself, and who wanted to make himself immortal. The rich people had technology and the poor people didn't have much of it at all. The gap was even wider than it is nowadays. Now that doesn't mean it will happen in RL, but it is one way it could go.