Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#141

Post by derleth »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #117
derleth wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? Better than anything else we've tried. I could mention Pol Pot and I could mention the Soviet Union and so on, but I won't. All I'll say is, "When you fuck up a system of government, the results get bloody extremely fast."

> Better than anything else we've tried. Is it really better? Or is the one people chose because it favors inertia and doesn't force them to think?

> Is it really better? Or is the one people chose because it favors inertia and doesn't force them to think?

There's never been a system tried that forced people to think any more than democracy does. All the other systems actively discourage some kind of thought, in fact, usually at gunpoint.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#142

Post by eli_gottlieb »

csense wrote: post #79
enraged_camel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those individuals are using science to support their pre-existing narrowmindedness, stubbornness, and extremism. Science is not making them those things. On the contrary, the fundamentals of science lie in questioning pre-conceived notions in the face of findings that conflict them. This is how scientific progress is made.

> questioning pre-conceived notions in the face of findings that conflict them In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The bigger the claims a hypothesis makes, the more skepticism you should have about that hypothesis. In political terms, the bigger the policy you're talking about, the more skepticism you should have about that policy. This mindset leads toward literal conservatism -- always ma…

Because the hypothesis of surplus-value extraction is easy to see and experience: find out how much work it takes to produce your salary and benefits in revenue, and then start refusing to work more than that. You will be fired. Therefore, your boss is extracting surplus value from you.

If you are a right-wing proprietarian, you might not object to that, on grounds you consented. If you're not that, you will feel exploited. The fact that the USA has the OECD's worst governmental working-condition laws that completely fail to make the extraction process feel more like a normal, bearable part of human life doesn't help.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#143

Post by tensor »

hmgrwntxn wrote: post #55

I don't want to step on too many toes, but I have to make mention of the error in the particular arrogance among the scientific community that their work qualifies them to reform other industries and facets of the human existence. Obviously the work of scientists and engineers is vital, and worthy of credit and praise, but I would not trust even the smartest scientists and engineers I know to handle the foreign polic…

I think it's more dangerous to worship irrationality. Frankly, I don't care if someone is a "scientist" or not, only that their method of truth discovery follows the scientific method and philosophy. There is no other methodology that has consistently increased our knowledge base over time.

Speaking of trust, I've been at the mercy of unscientific and irrational politicians my whole life whom I do not trust. I do not trust you because you are a "family man", or a "common man" or because you are "spiritual." In fact, if you are spiritual or religious, I trust you less by the fact that you subscribe to a non-rational philosophy.

Finally, I won't pretend to want to avoid stepping on toes. I'm sure the above will step on toes.

edit: and before someone accuses me of having no morals or ethics, I can assure you that I do. If I were forced to join an organisation, I suppose I'd have to join the secular humanists.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#144

Post by jstrate »

nzmsv wrote: post #135
saraid216 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So to follow your argument, being a lawyer does not make one "law". ...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? Of course being a lawyer doesn't make you "the law". > Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws? Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. It's important; it's relevant; it contributes to society in a positive and melioristic way.…

> ...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? No, it's not. I'm just poking fun at the parent post, specifically the "practicing science does not make you science" line. It just sounded like some bizarre variation of "you are (or not) what you eat" to me. > Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. I agree with this. Unfortunately, all too often people mak…

>He is arguing against putting scientists in government because the Nazis had scientists.

This doesn't comment does not merit a response, but no he is not.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#145

Post by podperson »

wheels wrote: post #30
ta12121 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have great sympathy for the position proposed in the article, with one major fear: those trained in science typically traffic in ideas that are either right (true) or wrong (false). I fear that this would dispose them toward authoritarianism, which is in fact the first word that comes to mind when I hear about Singapore. How does this compare to your personal experience?

You're probably not a scientist. Mathematics mostly traffics in things which are right or wrong; science rarely does. That's one of the criticisms that the peanut gallery often lobs at it: that it's just based on theories . When ideas are actually being trafficked -- that is when they're new and struggling for breathing room, they're rarely clearly right or wrong. Consensus forms over a fairly long amount of time. Wi…

It's one thing to suggest that there are plenty of things in Science (and even Math -- e.g. the Axiom of Choice) that aren't right or wrong (or where the answer remains undetermined) but the idea that the perception that science is binary -- relative to other pursuits -- is horribly inaccurate is a bit unfair.

Science may not be binary, but it's a heck of a lot more binary than Literary Criticism, Political Science, Law, or even Economics.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#146

Post by nooneelse »

jpwagner wrote: post #82
lmkg wrote: post #15

At least part of the problem is structural. One contributing factor could be that the US uses direct regional elections, instead of a parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system, the people vote on a party, rather than a person, and the party decides the individuals who get elected. There's less of an emphasis on individual charisma, and charismatic leaders only need appear at the top of the ticket. A party with…

The US is supposed to be a representative republic. I suppose this is mostly theoretical, but we shouldn't be voting for Pepsi vs Coke, we should be voting for an individual to serve in our region as representative. In direct response to the original post, Congress was not designed to invent a nation over and over again, it was designed to be a representation of regions. So scientists should represent regions where s…

That pushes the issue back into the older question, given a nation's worth of people, what type of dividing lines best group them into sub-populations for the purpose of representation. That is, why lines in space vs lines in income, or total wealth, or hair color, or profession? And what defense of lines in space could possibly defend such complex (gerrymandered) ones?

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#147

Post by ta12121 »

wheels wrote: post #30
ta12121 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have great sympathy for the position proposed in the article, with one major fear: those trained in science typically traffic in ideas that are either right (true) or wrong (false). I fear that this would dispose them toward authoritarianism, which is in fact the first word that comes to mind when I hear about Singapore. How does this compare to your personal experience?

You're probably not a scientist. Mathematics mostly traffics in things which are right or wrong; science rarely does. That's one of the criticisms that the peanut gallery often lobs at it: that it's just based on theories . When ideas are actually being trafficked -- that is when they're new and struggling for breathing room, they're rarely clearly right or wrong. Consensus forms over a fairly long amount of time. Wi…

The distinction I was attempting to make is that there is a difference between what is true or false, and what should be enforced by law and what shouldn't.

Consider the recently proposed ban on large servings of sweetened drinks. Do these promote diabetes costing the country lots of money in eventual treatment and lost productivity? Absolutely. Does the government have any business telling me what I drink with my Quarter Pounder and Large Fries? No.

I believe the answer to something like diabetes is more nuanced, such as the promotion of healthy eating habits in general, removing the massive grain subsidies that promote the existence of lots of cheap carbs and the availability of lots of meat. I'm sure a sociologist or psychologist could come up with better ideas for promoting health diets without being excessively coercive.

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#148

Post by fghh45sdfhr3 »

ta12121 wrote: post #147
wheels wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably not a scientist. Mathematics mostly traffics in things which are right or wrong; science rarely does. That's one of the criticisms that the peanut gallery often lobs at it: that it's just based on theories . When ideas are actually being trafficked -- that is when they're new and struggling for breathing room, they're rarely clearly right or wrong. Consensus forms over a fairly long amount of time. Wi…

The distinction I was attempting to make is that there is a difference between what is true or false, and what should be enforced by law and what shouldn't. Consider the recently proposed ban on large servings of sweetened drinks. Do these promote diabetes costing the country lots of money in eventual treatment and lost productivity? Absolutely. Does the government have any business telling me what I drink with my Qu…

I agree with everything you said about the ban on large servings of sweetened drinks. But remember we got this thanks to politicians, not scientists. It is a very typically "political" regulation in our society.

I in no way see how this applies to your fear of rule by scientists?

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#149

Post by [deleted] »

fghh45sdfhr3 wrote: post #148
ta12121 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction I was attempting to make is that there is a difference between what is true or false, and what should be enforced by law and what shouldn't. Consider the recently proposed ban on large servings of sweetened drinks. Do these promote diabetes costing the country lots of money in eventual treatment and lost productivity? Absolutely. Does the government have any business telling me what I drink with my Qu…

I agree with everything you said about the ban on large servings of sweetened drinks. But remember we got this thanks to politicians, not scientists. It is a very typically "political" regulation in our society. I in no way see how this applies to your fear of rule by scientists?

[deleted]

Re: Why Don’t Americans Elect Scientists?

#150

Post by cobrausn »

akirn wrote: post #95
cobrausn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.ehecklund.rice.edu/raas.html http://shambhalasun.com/sunspace/?p=23056 The second link indicates that the study found out that about half of those scientists surveyed express a religious identity, yet only 15% say they are always in conflict. My guess is most of those in the middle count themselves as 'deists'.

Ecklund's claims are greatly exaggerated, if not blatantly false. See http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/20/scientists-... for the debunking and http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/06/sciencereligion... for a more detailed examination of the compatibility of science and religion. Or go straight to the source and try to find an angle that supports your original statement, 'cause I can't: http://img248…

I never stated the viability of the entire thing, just that many scientists do consider themselves religious, regardless of compatibility. I personally don't think they are completely compatible unless you are looking at your religion as more of a cultural identity than a book of 'truths', or if you are Buddhist (http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/einsteins-quote...).
Post reply on HN