Can scientists govern Society?

[Ouroboros]

I think the whole problem comes from how the question is stated: Scientist govern society.

 

You are a scientist when you investigate and experiment with natural phenomena, that can be reproduced and tested. Society is an organism that can not be completely defined and organized. It moves and changes all the time.

 

The question could just as well have been: "Can a musician govern society?" And then we could have reasoned that it would be impossible, since a musician sits and play guitar all day long and never signs any bills.

 

So in the end, it's a faulty question. No one is a "scientist" in the sense that they only work and think like a scientist all day long, and every second and for everything that happens.

 

A person can be scientific inclined and be a scientist as a profession, but you're never a scientist when you're a politician. Anyone, from any profession, when they become a politician, then they are a politician and not whatever they were from start.

 

You can also switch between roles. A scientist is politician part time, and then he is scientist other days in the week.

 

Could we ask "Can grumpy people govern society?" or even better "Will lazy people starve to death?" The last question is valid, since a lazy person would never eat, but only sleep all the time.

 

We are more complex than just "A Scientist" or "A Musician" or "A XXX". We have different behaviors, and a mix of different traits and skills, that all come together to one person. We're never, just one skill or one talent, a person is construed of many talents.

 

So, to conclude, the construction of the question is wrong. (Even though I started the post! )

[Ssel]

And arbitration is not needed to prevent conflict. Arbitration is very poor at preventing conflict. In actuality, arbitration resolves conflict.

When I said "prevent", I really meant and should have said "prevents the continuance of conflict." Although, I assert that by the mere awareness of arbitration being available, very many conflicts are prevented from ever occuring. The number of these would be hard to determine, but I would imagine them to be enormous. Because arbitration is assumed in most of society, most potential conflicts still do not occur.

 

Society today favors conflict and has gone to the effort to neutralize many natural arbitration methods. If all were removed and maintained as void, no society could exist.

 

I think the whole problem comes from how the question is stated: Scientist govern society.

 

You are a scientist when you investigate and experiment with natural phenomena, that can be reproduced and tested. Society is an organism that can not be completely defined and organized. It moves and changes all the time.

I agree far more with Amanda's clear definition. Anyone can be of any persuation at one point in their lives. The question is really, "Can they govern by the methods which are the foundation of science? - thus be a scientist". Or, "Can they govern by truly scientific means?"

 

Unless you redefine what a "scientist" is, my answer is still, "No, they can not."

[Ouroboros]

I think the whole problem comes from how the question is stated: Scientist govern society.

 

You are a scientist when you investigate and experiment with natural phenomena, that can be reproduced and tested. Society is an organism that can not be completely defined and organized. It moves and changes all the time.

I agree far more with Amanda's clear definition. Anyone can be of any persuation at one point in their lives. The question is really, "Can they govern by the methods which are the foundation of science? - thus be a scientist". Or, "Can they govern by truly scientific means?"

 

Unless you redefine what a "scientist" is, my answer is still, "No, they can not."

I understand what you wanted to explain or say with your question. And I agree, using a scientific method to govern a group doesn't work, you have to use political tools and mind set. The question should be stated "Can you use only pure scientific methods and mind set to govern any kind of society?" Then the answer would be no, since the methods used in politics are different.

 

To ask if a "scientist" (meaning a person that only and always only use scientific methods in everything he does), can do anything, then the answer is also no.

 

How the question is formulated can be equated to this question "Can a piano player cook food?" And the answer would of course be No, because he would hammer his piano keys and hoping to get chopped tomatoes. And this also holds true, unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word "Piano player".

 

For instance a politician uses rhetorical and emotional statements to gain trust and drive his agenda and get his issues driven through. While a scientist works with data, creates documents to explain, and get peer review for the results. A politician doesn't change his opinion because someone believe to the contrary, while a scientist could change his opinion of his "theory" when it's proven wrong. So in essence, a scientist can't be a politician. (Besides politicians use lies and deceit to further cause, much more than scientists do, even though some scientists use those methods too.)

 

It all comes back to the definition as you say. A scientist in a pure meaning is a person that follows the scientific method, and a politician is a person that follows political methods. And the methods are not the same. But a scientist as a human being have more traits and skills than just using the scientific method in his daily work. He doesn't drive his car by peer review and publishing results. He doesn't write a mathematical formula to brew a cup of coffee. He doesn't use empirical methods to brush his teeth. So a human being that has the profession "scientist" is not necessarily "scientific" in his daily walk, and could be inclined into political work too. So the human-scientist can be a politician, but a scientific-only-scientist could not (besides he would probably die of hunger and thirst anyway, because he would have to have complete list of the water and food contents measured in mg before he could eat it, and he would never sleep because he couldn't find a proof why it would be important to do so.)

 

As an example, I've meet scientists that also were active in leadership roles. Or I know scientists that also teaches, and lead the class. Can a scientist govern a small group such as a school class, but not a larger group?

[Vixentrox]

I'd think a scientist would be to busy doing reasearch to worry about governing.

[Ssel]

I think Amanda explained it perfectly with this;

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?

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Scientists and Reasoners such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine and James Madison did a fairly good job of establishing and governing the modern world's first representative democracy. That seems to be good evidence that people with a slant towards science and reason can indeed govern society.

 

However, I think it's a strange question to begin with. It seems to assume that a scientist has only one facet - that of working with test tubes and experiments. I would think that most scientists, like the majority of other people, are capable of working successfully in multiple areas. One might as well ask if actors (Reagan, Ahnold) are capable of governing or if oil men/air guard reservist no-shows are capable of governing.

 

As an earlier poster asked, is there really another question being asked? Is that question whether only christians (of the proper denominations) can govern?

[Ssel]

One might as well ask if actors (Reagan, Ahnold) are capable of governing or if oil men/air guard reservist no-shows are capable of governing.

And like Reagan and all of the others, they had to stop their prior carreer in order to focus on politics. The question had nothing to do with a person who was once in science being able to govern. The real question was about the ability of science to govern. Science is a council role, not a governing role. There are too many things that science can not immediately resolve but need immediate answers.

 

As an earlier poster asked, is there really another question being asked? Is that question whether only christians (of the proper denominations) can govern?

No, in fact the exact opposite was being assumed on a different thread. The assumption that if those nasty Christians would just all go away, then science would step up and the world would suddenly be a sweet and just place. The statement was made that there are many other options that would far outweigh science trying to govern politics.

[Ouroboros]

There are people that easily and successfully implement their skills of using multiple tactics and methods in their professions or several professions. Some people can't, being to singular in their minds. Most people that starts a new business have to be able to change hats and take different approaches in different situations.

 

When Intel started, the founders, Gordon E. Moore (a chemist and physicist) and Robert Noyce (a physicist and co-inventor of the integrated circuit), were highly scientifically skilled people that had to work as leaders at the same time as they keep on developed their new technologies. So they were scientists in leadership roles. Now, granted, they didn't use "Science" to do the "Leading", and I agree with Ssel on that point. A scientific mind set can't be the tool to lead people, so Moore and Noyce changed hats when they were leading or when they were inventing.

 

This goes for many other companies as well.

 

But it's interesting to look at Apple. Wozniak and Jobs (and Wayne, the popularly unknown third founder) had different mind sets. Wozniak, the techie, and Jobs the leader. Their relationship is a hint to how the roles are so different, and the personalities as well.

[Ssel]

There are people that easily and successfully implement their skills of using multiple tactics and methods

Your confusing "science" with "people". Science is a methodogy. That methodology can not govern peoples lives. A person who knows something about science can do so. But "a scientist" only has meaning when refering to someone who is using the science method.

 

Science can not, in real time, determine if people should or should not be bussed to schools. They can put together a 100 year study program with a variety of control groups and variant groups so as to watch the end effects and they will know a better answer than any before them, but too little too late. And that is only one very small example of the 1000 they would have to study before they could make a scientific conclusion.

[Ouroboros]

There are people that easily and successfully implement their skills of using multiple tactics and methods

Your confusing "science" with "people". Science is a methodogy. That methodology can not govern peoples lives. A person who knows something about science can do so. But "a scientist" only has meaning when refering to someone who is using the science method.

No, I'm not confusing those two. You actually are restating what I said.

 

My claim was that this thread was confused by it. The statement "Can a Scientist..." when the real meaning was "Can a person using only the scientific methodology..."

 

I think you finally can see my point. Because you're saying exactly what I was trying to say, with this: "That methodology can not govern peoples lives." That's exactly what I was saying. (But with other words)

 

Let's do little logic here:

 

P1) It takes political skills to govern people

P2) A is a scientist

P3) A is a person

P4) A is using different skill sets depending on situation

P5) A is also a politician

 

Can this be true? I think so.

 

C) A can govern people (or "Scientists can be politicians")

 

 

Compared to:

 

P1) It takes political skills to govern people

P2) A is a scientist

P3) A is a person

P5) A is using scientific methodology only, always, regardless of situation

P4) A is also a politician

 

Can this be true? No, I don't thing so.

 

C) A can not govern people. (or "Scientific methodology is not a good tool for politics")

 

 

Science can not, in real time, determine if people should or should not be bussed to schools. They can put together a 100 year study program with a variety of control groups and variant groups so as to watch the end effects and they will know a better answer than any before them, but too little too late. And that is only one very small example of the 1000 they would have to study before they could make a scientific conclusion.

I understand, and I agree, but my argument was how the question was stated, not the underlying intention of the statement.

 

Most of the debate on the earlier pages was that a scientist can be a politician and govern people, and I think they can. But a person that only apply scientific methodology to every aspect of life, will not only have problem govern other people, but have a hard time even to life a normal life and survive.

 

The scientific mind is about observing, theorizing and reaffirm nature and phenomena, while the political mind is about controlling and guiding people to build a safe and stable society. The mind sets are obviously in contradiction to each other.

 

I can only see that we do agree, but maybe you can't see yet that we do. It's more a matter of a lexical or linguistic conflict than a conflict of contents. M'kay?

[crazy-tiger]

Unless you redefine what a "scientist" is, my answer is still, "No, they can not."

I still beg to differ, since the definition you yourself 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.

implies that "science" is simply adhering to demonstrated fact and that is all a scientist does...

 

Now, apart from implying that scientists are the only ones that adhere to demonstrated facts, it misses out the critical parts of science... Hypothesizing, Theorizing and Testing, which just happen to be the same critical parts of governing. (it's impossible to adhere to demonstraded facts only, and all governments Hypothesise, Theorize and Test)

 

Hell, your own definition was so far out, it implies that there could be no such thing as Political Science...

 

 

 

The answer would be "Yes, they can govern", since it's basically a science...

[Ssel]

Political Science...

 

The answer would be "Yes, they can govern", since it's basically a science...

Again, your accepted that something is science merely because it has the word in the title. Anything can be called a science if you enjoy such things.

 

But then what are you going to do with "Christian Science"? - "Yes, they can govern", since it's basically a science..."

[crazy-tiger]

Political Science...

 

The answer would be "Yes, they can govern", since it's basically a science...

Again, your accepted that something is science merely because it has the word in the title. Anything can be called a science if you enjoy such things.

 

But then what are you going to do with "Christian Science"? - "Yes, they can govern", since it's basically a science..."

Didn't click the link, did you? Why don't you try doing that before jumping to a conclusion... especially one that's definitely wrong.

Did I accept "that something is science merely because it has the word in the title"? No... Do some research about it and learn just how wrong you are.

[Guest Lev Bronstein]

Can scientists govern?

 

Sure, I have yet to see the evidence that they will do any better.

 

Scientists have not hesitated to put the most destructive weapons into the hands of brutal dictators have they?

 

They have engaged in fraud to get grants haven't they?

 

They have lied haven't they? They have committed the same crimes as others haven't they? (There was a Chemistry Prof at our university who hammered his wife to death.)

 

They screw undergrads don't they...of course, some would say that if the undergrad is a student that is a conflict.

 

So who knows?

 

What I do know, is atheists in power (and of course, not all scientists are atheists) have committed the most brutal crimes.

 

I have not noticed that atheist governments did any better than anyone else, and were usually worse.

[Amethyst]

But then what are you going to do with "Christian Science"? - "Yes, they can govern", since it's basically a science..."

 

Christian Scientists deny medicine to their children because of their cult. Surely you don't suggest that's even remotely scientific! They're not scientists any more than scientologists are.

 

And I think Han Solo made a good point. Most people have more than one skillset.

 

Ex.

 

Person A is an actor.

Person A is also a politician.

Person A has both acting skills and political skills.

Person A applies the appropriate skill to the appropriate situation.

 

It's not very realistic to assume that someone has only one set of skills and uses it ALL the time, for ALL situations. If someone did that, it would be a disorder of some sort and not normal behavior.

[Cerise]

Don't bother Serenity. Goldy-pants dropped by for a visit, as evidenced in the trail of dung that leads from the shoutbox to the forum. Obviously his new caretaker isn't very skilled at keeping him away from the computer and putting him down for his nap.

[Mythra]

[Ouroboros]

Can scientists govern?

 

Sure, I have yet to see the evidence that they will do any better.

 

Scientists have not hesitated to put the most destructive weapons into the hands of brutal dictators have they?

 

They have engaged in fraud to get grants haven't they?

 

They have lied haven't they? They have committed the same crimes as others haven't they? (There was a Chemistry Prof at our university who hammered his wife to death.)

 

They screw undergrads don't they...of course, some would say that if the undergrad is a student that is a conflict.

 

So who knows?

 

What I do know, is atheists in power (and of course, not all scientists are atheists) have committed the most brutal crimes.

 

I have not noticed that atheist governments did any better than anyone else, and were usually worse.

You're an id10t!

 

The question was NOT if atheists can govern, but scientists.

 

Or do you claim only atheists are scientists? Meaning, all religious (especially Christians) are not scientific, and you admit Hovind et al are a bunch of moronic crackpots? Finally! A Christian that can admit all Christians being ignorant, stupid and irrational! Amen to that!

 

What about all the stories the last couple of months and years of CHRISTIANS killing people here in US? The last one was the wonderful young couple that had the blogs, and the blogs tell us so much about how wonderful Christian they are, and one day the boy killed the girls parents, and he doesn't even feel remorse about it!!! WFT? Are you saying this Christian boy was an Atheist because he killed someone, and only Atheists can kill? What a great conflict you are in! How can he be both Christian and Atheist at the same time? Oh, I know, he wasn't a "True Christian™" like you. He wasn't as humble and respectful and full of love like you, was he? You come here full of the love of Jesus and give us religious hate speech.

 

What a fucking moron you are!

 

Besides, what scientists invents IS NOT the same thing as if they can GOVERN. Scientists have invented the evil microwave oven too, and the car, and the hateful and murdering TV. Let's not talk about the microphone, loudspeakers and electronic instruments THAT YOU USE IN CHURCH!!! Or the printing machine to print fucking BIBLES! Those EVIL ATHEISTS have helped you to further your cause! SMEGHEAD!

 

 

Sorry guys for the interruption of extreme piss-off-ness. I know, I know... he was most likely a fly-by spammer-troll. But there's are other things that is going on, and I needed an outlet for frustration.

 

 

 

Don't bother Serenity. Goldy-pants dropped by for a visit, as evidenced in the trail of dung that leads from the shoutbox to the forum. Obviously his new caretaker isn't very skilled at keeping him away from the computer and putting him down for his nap.

Oh. It was Goldy. Of course, that makes sense, arrogant, ignorant, stupid, moronic, full of hate and shit, ... yeah, that pretty much sums up Goldy.

 

It's amazing how someone can call themselves Christian and behave the exact opposite to the "fruits of the spirit", and yet claim to be the "True Christian™".

[Ssel]

A scientist can leave science to become a politician. A Christian can leave Christianity to become a monarchy.

 

If the Christian really isn't following the doctrines of Christianity, regardless of his label and proclamations, he isn't really Christian, is he? The same is true of the scientist.

 

Sorry guys for the interruption of extreme piss-off-ness. I know, I know... he was most likely a fly-by spammer-troll. But there's are other things that is going on, and I needed an outlet for frustration.

You started the thread. I suspect that gives you the privledge.

[Cerise]

Would that mean that man has absolutely no duality?

 

And what exactly are the "doctrines" of science anyway?

[crazy-tiger]

And what exactly are the "doctrines" of science anyway?

Well, the "doctrines" would be Theorizing, Hypothesizing, Testing... which is what polititians and governments do.

[MQTA]

 

 

It's amazing how someone can call themselves Christian and behave the exact opposite to the "fruits of the spirit", and yet claim to be the "True Christian".

 

When the mouth is engaged, the ears and brain close up

 

they LOVE Hearing themselves speak. EGO boosting orgasms

[Ouroboros]

A scientist can leave science to become a politician. A Christian can leave Christianity to become a monarchy.

 

If the Christian really isn't following the doctrines of Christianity, regardless of his label and proclamations, he isn't really Christian, is he? The same is true of the scientist.

 

The problem is that if you're right, that a scientist is purely scientific in everything he does, then a scientist can't have a family, since that would require governing a home, finances and kids. This means that either no true scientist have ever had a family, or a scientist that have a family is not a true scientist.

 

I maintain my position that a scientist, as a person, can definitely do other things, even govern society. But the scientific method is not a tool that could be used in politics. Science is about observing and experimenting, while politics is about leading and maintaining stability. The difference is like at a sports event, you have some people running on the field, playing the game, while some are reporters writing about the event. Can a reporter be a football player?

 

I don't see being a "scientist" the same things as being a "christian". A scientist believe in the scientific method when he is finding out about the science he is studying. There a no scientists that know and study all possible areas in physicis, biology, astronomy etc... A scientist apply the method in those areas where he do it as a profession or a hobby. He doesn't apply the scientific method to brewing coffee or turning on the MP3 player. There are Christian scientists, am I not correct? Or should we take Levi's standpoint and consider all true scientists must be atheists? Meaning, all Christian Scientists are lying between their teeth, because they can't be both?

 

 

Sorry guys for the interruption of extreme piss-off-ness. I know, I know... he was most likely a fly-by spammer-troll. But there's are other things that is going on, and I needed an outlet for frustration.

You started the thread. I suspect that gives you the privledge.

Yeah, I guess!

 

And what exactly are the "doctrines" of science anyway?

Well, the "doctrines" would be Theorizing, Hypothesizing, Testing... which is what polititians and governments do.

The government and politicians do much more than that.

 

They also use rhetorical tools, polemics, emotional arguments, lobbying, dining, socializing... the political work includes much more of communication and convincing other people through arguments, and not truth. Sometimes they argue based on truth, but mostly its based on political agenda and position. They leave most of the theorizing, hypothezing to the supporting staff of the cabinet rather than the leading congressmen.

 

For instance, people chose the President, and who they chose is not based on their grades or professor degree, but on how they are perceived. Do a majority feel (notice feel), they can trust the person, or at least they believe that this person have an agenda conforming to their own, that's the one they chose. Many also vote based on party line, without even thinking.

 

The people that get into power are people that want power. A scientist wants to know how things work, while people that become politicians are usually people that wants to be in control. Roughly speaking, a scientist is curious and ask questions, while a politician don't care and tell people.

 

But this is depending on the role a person takes. And we get back to the confusion of if a person that is a scientist incapable of thinking and acting as a politician?

 

 

 

 

It's amazing how someone can call themselves Christian and behave the exact opposite to the "fruits of the spirit", and yet claim to be the "True Christian™".

 

When the mouth is engaged, the ears and brain close up

 

they LOVE Hearing themselves speak. EGO boosting orgasms

Wow! That is true!

 

That's why they always are so loud too! They open their mouth so big that they squeze the brain and the ear tube get blocked. And their eyes get closed too. That's why they don't hear, see or thing. If they just could open a little bit more, maybe the brain would pop out completely, and we could put their brain in a jar. (like my avatar.)

[Ssel]

The people that get into power are people that want power. A scientist wants to know how things work, while people that become politicians are usually people that wants to be in control. Roughly speaking, a scientist is curious and ask questions, while a politician don't care and tell people.

Exactly. So in an open contest, which is likely to be ruling? - the altruistic scientist, or the clever manipulator of ideas?

 

My statement was that the altruistic scientist can not stay in power even if he gets there. Get rid of the Christians, and another power oriented group will take over. If that group is a group of "scientists", then I say they stopped being scientist when they accepted that power agenda.

 

There are VERY many power hungry, aggressive, and experienced groups out there just waiting for every Christian hold to weaken. Yet you think the altruistic scientist will rule?? - with no real expereince at manipulating people?? - Surrrrrre.

 

..And Santa Claus will magically heal the little elves and Christmas will be saved.

[Amethyst]

Really? So NONE of the American presidents or any kings or queens in history had ANY good motivations at all?

 

Just because someone got elected to office does not mean they are power hungry. Not every president was George W. Bush. Granted, if they didn't want it, they wouldn't have run in the first place, but I would hate to ever become so cynical as to think that everyone who was ever in control of a country had no good motives at all.