Popcorn Sutton Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I guess this is a question stirring up recently. I'm leaning towards a yes actually, but as I have stated in a previous thread, my ideal scientocracy would be one that uses statistics rather than the voting system. The fact of the matter is that, and I might be a little biased in saying this because I do consider myself a scientist, I do believe that we are living in a scientocracy, however, I do not believe that we are using statistics to the ideal extent. In this video, Improving Democracy- Fast Economic Growth- Scientocracy, Dr. Carlos Sabillon lobbies Scientocracy as the answer to economic disaster, and he's a very open vocalist about it as well (talking about it on TV, lobbying it in Brazil during this time in the revolution). He talks about the economic history of the USA and select countries in Europe and makes a correlation between "idiots" and a low, declining, GDP. He says "[Why was George W. Bush elected president? He was not fit for the job! The only reason he would get elected is because his father was in office.]" In this video, the UK ponders whether we live in a Scientocracy or not. As I stated above, the more I think about it, the more it seems that we do, in fact, live in a Scientocracy. Again, we're not using statistics to our advantage. We need to localize priorities, analyze peoples writing statistically, and see what the bulk of the evidence suggests. We need to put a bit of confidence in our priorities rather than just focusing on global warming and carbon emissions. One guy in that video says "it's not binary, it's not like it's either evidence based or not evidence based, there's a strength behind it." Here's a podcast by a young enthusiast that seems to have no bias at all about a scientocracy. I don't think that the Wikipedia article gives it much justice. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 ...Here's a podcast by a young enthusiast that seems to have no bias at all about a scientocracy.... My irony meter needs replacing - and I think you might need to invest in one. Or at least listen to the podcasts you link to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I believe we live in a "Moneyocracy". Money is king. Money decides, until the public outrage is too great for the govt to control. Then laws are passed to put restrictions on extreme bottom line thinking. And now in China, the outrage is over pollution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I believe we live in a "Moneyocracy". Money is king. Money decides, until the public outrage is too great for the govt to control. Then laws are passed to put restrictions on extreme bottom line thinking. And now in China, the outrage is over pollution. find "extreme bottom line thinking" replace with "expressions of public outrage" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The impeded action with regard to climate change, gross misinformation about women's health and attempts to teach ID/creationism are obvious rebuttals to the US living in a scientocracy. There are plenty of policies where science should be considered and isn't. (More so by one party than the other, in these examples) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Maybe, if our politicians wise up, they'll consider reviewing information provided by groups who concern themselves with statistics such as- http://www.rss.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=1 And http://www.amstat.org But I don't know if they have big data (which would definitely help) or if they use natural language processing to acquire the information necessary for local, regional, and global prioritization. My preference would be nlp rather than polls because it's much easier to bias polls And because I'm a huge fan of big data. The impeded action with regard to climate change, gross misinformation about women's health and attempts to teach ID/creationism are obvious rebuttals to the US living in a scientocracy. There are plenty of policies where science should be considered and isn't. (More so by one party than the other, in these examples)I really like this video, and I do think that I've influenced him in some way, but he argues against evolution, not for ID/creationism though. I wish I knew which part of the video it was in, maybe about a half hour in. It really is a great video though. Theory of Everything Trey Smith I can't post the link sorry Edited January 8, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 My irony meter needs replacing - and I think you might need to invest in one. Or at least listen to the podcasts you link to. I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate? The Aims of Science. I do agree with the authors’ concerns about the education of scientists. The training of scientists frequently does exclude vital areas that could make them better-rounded citizens. What is most needed, however, is not journalistic communication skills. Many scientists would greatly benefit from more exposure to the history and philosophy of science. They would then learn that the “methodological naturalism,” claimed by Mooney and Kirshenbaum to be essential to science, was not assumed by major scientists, such as Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton. They would also learn that philosophers of science reject attempts rigidly to demarcate science from non-science because they are vulnerable to counterexamples. While Robert Pennock, cited by the authors, defends methodological naturalism because science cannot investigate the work of the divine (104), philosopher Thomas Nagel rightly notes that “the fact that there could be no scientific theory of the internal operation of the divine mind is consistent with its being in large part a scientific question whether divine intervention provides a more likely explanation of the empirical data.”2 Even more helpful to the education of scientists would be a stronger emphasis on ethics. Mooney and Kirshenbaum think it is obvious what we should do with the powerful findings of science. But each item on the list of woes they hope science will address-the energy crisis, nuclear proliferation, and climate change-is, on their own view, also a product of science. Science tells us what is possible, but cannot by itself say whether it is wise. This is not surprising, because science is a value-free enterprise: it reveals how to do something, but cannot tell us if we should. As scientific power increases, it becomes vitally important that scientists are trained to think deeply about the goals of human life. -Angus Menuge I don't know who this is, but he also states this- political ideology led government officials to endorse Lysenko’s theory of the heritability of acquired characteristics, because it seemed to cohere with Marxism better than the deterministic and “bourgeois” ideas of genetics. As a result, there were widespread crop failures, and Soviet biology stagnated. Mooney and Kirshenbaum never discuss the possibility of an American Lysenkoism, in which a scientocracy imposes large-scale scientific solutions to social problems that have irreparable consequences for human health or fertility, or which make human beings still more dependent on science for their continued well-being. I read in a catholic forum that they "[do not wish to abolish science because it does not always contradict the 'Sacred Scripture',]" but that they "[despise those who feel that they are entitled to speak on behalf of everyone else and persuade politicians to believe that it is the consensus.]" As also stated in an Evangelist blog, "[The consensus is not even a scientific notion. If everyone concedes to a wrongful view, then that should not be seen or used as evidence to persuade others, including politicians, to invest in things such as reducing CO2 emissions because doing that is obviously detrimental to our economic well-being.]" I agree with these people. Discoveries are made by individuals. It's over time that the discoveries become recognized by other individuals and eventually become a consensus. It's when someone comes along and adjusts, justifiably stipulates, or, if we get lucky, proves a theory wrong that we, as individuals, praise, look forward to, and rejoice over. It's a very rare occurrence to find out something new about ourselves and our universe, but when it comes around, it's very uplifting for scientists. It gives hope, it brings peace, it makes things accessible, and, if we get lucky, it prevents pain and loss. If there's one thing I know about psychology, it's that our greatest fears, as biological machines, are death and rejection. I'd argue that rejection is number 1 on the list. Paraphrasing these people above, as I have stated many times, there is a way to go about revitalizing ones economy. Gather as much data as possible and do what you can to analyze it. The most statistically significant priorities will automatically come on top (and in my experience, the most statistically significant stuff is THE ALPHABET, phonemes, diphthongs, morphemes... or, plainly stated, EDUCATION. Strange huh?). The most significant thing we can do in a childs life, or in anyones life, is to maximize their knowledge. I truly believe that because we live and experience, we are consistently maximizing our knowledge. I would feel absolutely, unimaginably, empathetic towards someone without the capacity to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate?... In a post on scientocracy and with a tag stating that the podcaster was a proponent you posted a link to a podcast that was an anti-science rant performed by a vocal advocate of intelligent design Maybe, if our politicians wise up, they'll consider reviewing information provided by groups who concern themselves with statistics such as- http://www.rss.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=1 And http://www.amstat.org But I don't know if they have big data (which would definitely help) or if they use natural language processing to acquire the information necessary for local, regional, and global prioritization. My preference would be nlp rather than polls because it's much easier to bias polls And because I'm a huge fan of big data. I really like this video, and I do think that I've influenced him in some way, but he argues against evolution, not for ID/creationism though. I wish I knew which part of the video it was in, maybe about a half hour in. It really is a great video though. Theory of Everything Trey Smith I can't post the link sorry FYG - you may wish to google the "Office for National Statistics" - this is the UK national statistical institute; I am sure there is an equivalent in most states. And No it is a truly dreadful video. I liked one of the youtuba's comments Maybe I should make a video about stuff I don't have any understanding of and demand that these things make sense to my uneducated mind. Oh wait this guy just did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 The fact that he made so many quotes was what led me to believe that he was unbiased. Also, a commentator said, in review of the article, "[Casey makes his argument on scientific grounds.]" Maybe he's not so scientific though because later in the response, it says "[Casey says that there are very good arguments against...]" <-This is not scientific in my opinion, he didn't make any citations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The "American Lysenkoism" comment that was quoted is crap. The main issue with Lysenko was that he was wrong and his "science" was an ideology being dressed up as science. So it wasn't a scientocratic system at all. The actual "American Lysenkoism" that's playing out is what I described earlier — people pushing "facts" purportedly baed in science but actually based on ideology (e.g. using birth control causes cancer, the polar vortex is a liberal conspiracy) It's not even that people are asking for there to be a political buffer between science and policy, either. It's the advancement of facts that turn out to be fabrications, that are used to support a position. Which is not a scientocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) The "American Lysenkoism" comment that was quoted is crap. The main issue with Lysenko was that he was wrong and his "science" was an ideology being dressed up as science. So it wasn't a scientocratic system at all. The actual "American Lysenkoism" that's playing out is what I described earlier — people pushing "facts" purportedly based in science but actually based on ideology (e.g. using birth control causes cancer, the polar vortex is a liberal conspiracy) It's not even that people are asking for there to be a political buffer between science and policy, either. It's the advancement of facts that turn out to be fabrications, that are used to support a position. Which is not a scientocracy. I agree completely with your statement about Lysenkoism, I think that that comment was completely uncalled for. A scientocracy would not even be remotely near Lysenkoism. So what is a scientocracy by your standards? A scientocracy would be horrible, a despotism in which people are shoehorned into rigid theoretical models. Oh, wait; we've tried that already! It was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I seem to remember it didn't work out all that well... Timothy Birdnow A religious perspective- Ah but how does America work? That’s right its a DEMOCRACY “by the people, for the people” – where theMajority view is respected. America is NOT a “Scientocracy” run “by the scientists for the scientists” and I along withmost patriotic Americans thank the Lord for that. When discussing the Creation are not talking here about the latest dubious scientific guesses or computer simulations or theories. We are talking about the American people who, by and large, belive the Bible and put their faith in Almighty God and the Risen Christ NOT the almighty atheist Dawkins or his flock of juvenile mockers of God’s Word. Blog To further elaborate on the religious perspective, I recently joined the Catholic Answer Forums (don't shun me), if you want to see the post, you can find it here. But I will quote part of it- Be assured that the Catholic Church (some 2 Billion strong) is up to date on all matters of humanity and spirituality. The 2000+ year history of the Church includes by far the most profound thinkers of all generations and has contributed enormously to human understanding. The irony here is that when I mentioned that there was a recent consensus on the freedom of will on behalf of highly respected scientists and the Supreme Court, they responded with "[We were not aware of this.]" Since the Republican party is so stuck on this whole religion thing, I figured that I might as well join those forums and see if I can't help settle the right-wing radicals who really need to educate themselves prior to being elected. I can only hope that we have something like scientocracy by the next big election. I'm considering nominating myself for public office and seeing what I can do. Another person elaborates on the Lysenkoism hypothesis of Scientocracy. Beware the government or scientocracy (see ID the Future) that decides the ends and trains its citizens, like Hitler Youth, to accomplish its political desires. Edited January 9, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I agree completely with your statement about Lysenkoism, I think that that comment was completely uncalled for. A scientocracy would not even be remotely near Lysenkoism. So what is a scientocracy by your standards? Timothy Birdnow You "agree" with me and then immediately quote something that is 180º in opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 I'm just posting information, not that I agree with it. I do agree with you, but this was the question. What do you consider to be a Scientocracy? Are you leaning towards Utopia or Dystopia? What are the benefits and detriments of the possibility? Would you support my claim that we should replace the voting system (or at least compliment it with a writing sample)? I really enjoyed reading this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I'm just posting information, not that I agree with it. I do agree with you, but this was the question. Well, that's a cop-out. If you aren't arguing for a position or pointing out a flaw in someone else's position, then how is this any different than trolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 That's not my intention, but I'll keep it in mind . You still didn't answer my questions though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 What do you consider to be a Scientocracy? Are you leaning towards Utopia or Dystopia? What are the benefits and detriments of the possibility? Would you support my claim that we should replace the voting system (or at least compliment it with a writing sample)? I really enjoyed reading this one. Scientocracy - the practice of basing public policies on science. Based on this definition, I see no evidence for it. It would be nice if lawmakers would be humble enough to listen to scientific consensus and just argue about solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I was going on the definition you had linked/posted - having public policy that is based on science. Can't really have much of a conversation if you haven't defined the terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Scientocracy- Improving democracy by either replacing the voting system in favor of using language, or complimenting the voting system by adding an optional language sample. By submitting a language sample, statistical analysis will help prioritize issues of significance and select the right politicians, which is theorized to promote productivity and speed up the growth of the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Scientocracy- Improving democracy by either replacing the voting system in favor of using language, or complimenting the voting system by adding an optional language sample. By submitting a language sample, statistical analysis will help prioritize issues of significance and select the right politicians, which is theorized to promote productivity and speed up the growth of the economy. To have a meaningful discussion you really do have to stick to agreed definitions; when you start eliding the meaning of words as severely as you have done the potential utility of a debate tends to zero - how would we even know if we agreed or disagreed? ... 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Or is it going to do the opposite? I don't know I took the chance. Someone want to edit it? I can't do it right now I'm using my phone. The Wikipedia by the way I changed it and I don't know if I should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Scientocracy- Improving democracy by either replacing the voting system in favor of using language, or complimenting the voting system by adding an optional language sample. By submitting a language sample, statistical analysis will help prioritize issues of significance and select the right politicians, which is theorized to promote productivity and speed up the growth of the economy. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. A language sample? Or "using language" instead of voting? Also, why does a system have to be a democracy in order to be a scientocracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Spoken, written, sign, whatever people want to say gets put on a list and whoever knows the most gets elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Or is it going to do the opposite? I don't know I took the chance. Someone want to edit it? I can't do it right now I'm using my phone. The Wikipedia by the way I changed it and I don't know if I should have. I changed it back. People rely on wikipedia - possibly they shouldn't - but have a little care before putting such a personal and slanted definition up on the wiki. There are very intense discussion pages for even minor changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Can we add a little to it through? At least add a bit about the language sample and statistics. Or add more involving other sciences. And if there's one about scientocracy can I get involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Spoken, written, sign, whatever people want to say gets put on a list and whoever knows the most gets elected. That sounds more like a meritocracy. Who evaluates the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now