Messianic science?

[tama]

Anyone else give thought to the idea that to solve our global problems there should be a scientific world governement - and/or tyranny of philosophers/scientists, as in Plato's Polis, to save the world?

Pros and cons? Other speculations?

If so, how to create scientific world governement? Academics around the world selecting by peer reviewed methodology superacademy on top of existing academic hierarchies as World Governement? And why, for chrissake, did that last thought bring to my mind "illuminati?"??? :P Well, no need to go in that direction.

Seriously, could scientific world governement save the world, and if so, how? Or anyone think that problems caused by science cannot be solved by science and something else is required?

Currently I'm open about this idea and not against giving it a shot, in principle, but would like to here other viewpoints to form a better informed opinion.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. have you watched the original version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" lately?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. That would require Reason.

Reason scares people and is not good business. I mean, whoever heard of a rich guy on TV who built a huge empire preaching Reason?

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I recommend you read Plato's Republic carefully

Seriously.

[tama]

4. Did so

and partly in Greek. One of my professors was a specialist in Plato.

And with Plato, you can never be sure if it's self irony or totally serious. And in my aesthetics superposition of self irony and total seriousness in a mark of High Poetry, to be measured only very carefully without collapsing it. So, do you have some prima facie reason to oppose rule by academic hierarchy of philosopher kings? Shouldn't it be at least tested empirically before it can be falsified?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Because any system can easily go into tyranny.

And as the sun rises this will, easily, with the best of intentions of course.

[tama]

10. And with best intentions

paving the way to hell? But what if it does not have to get perfect, at least right away? Wouldn't even a baby step towards better be preferable to this hell?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. The problem is that it is quite authoritarian

And also has the other problem of top down. I personally do not see it as that different than the clergy taking over.

Science has a role. But the other term that comes to mind is an utopia.

[tama]

14. Well

what if the philosopher kings came to the realization and scientific truth of Deep Ecology that that Gaia is conscious organism and that the scientists channeling her in the form of dynamic self-evolving theory of Gaia, with Internet as most recent major addition to Her neural network of synaptic associations? And naturally, the scientists channeling Her acting as the middle-managament on Her behalf, purely in descriptive and objective scientific meaning only. Would it then be OK?

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. You just entered into a faith matter

Gaia is a new age religion.

Bye, I take my leae now.

[applegrove]

5. Yup. The republican war on regulations is a war on science.... since the experts are where

the data comes from.

[Pterodactyl]

6. I vote no on that. Scientists are really good at science, but not so good at leading people.

Scientists might be good at math, but are not necessarily good at leading people. I work in a high tech field and am surrounded by brilliant people, but many of them would make terrible project managers. Leadership is a different skill set. If you have someone who is technically great and a good leader, you've really got something.

Rule by "academics" would also be poor. Again, they are great at research, but not great at leading people. Some of my college professors were not even great at leading a classroom! Also, my college was ruled by academics and tuition went up every year.

(And finally, rule by scientists would be all wrong. The world should be ruled by ENGINEERS!)

[TheMadMonk]

7. Scientists make as poor rulers as theologians.

After all, anyone who refuse to see the clear, inevitable logic of their directions and behavese contrarily is obviously an enemy of the state.

I might point out there was a lot of "scientific thinking" behind Nazi Germany. (AND Soviet Russia.)

[Confusious]

16. Which scientists are those?

and what Germany did was pseudo science. It wasn't real science at all. They tailored the data to suit their conclusions. Not the other way around.

total bullshit.

[TheMadMonk]

25. To us today, yes. Most definitely pseudo science.

To the Americans of the time who INSPIRED Nazi eugenics it was most definitely science of the highest order. Wrongheaded as Hell, but like the old saw about the paving in that direction, with all the best intentions (for one's own, if no one else).

They also did "research" on what we would today characterise as paranormal phenomenon.

[LeftishBrit]

19. I think you're equating science with technology.

The Nazis as well as the Stalinists and other recent dictators did make extensive, and often amoral, use of advanced technology. But they did not run government on research-based principles. The attitude that 'anyone who refuse to see the clear, inevitable logic of their directions and behavese contrarily is obviously an enemy of the state' is not a scientific attitude. Ignoring contrary evidence because it doesn't fit one's theory of how things should be is *against* the basic principles of scientific research. When dictators intrude into science, they usually harm it. A noted example is 'Lysenkoism' in the Soviet Union, where Stalin favoured Lysenko's theory of acquired inheritance; those who reported alternative results were persecuted and their ideas suppressed; and this set back scientific biology in the Soviet Union by many years.

[TheMadMonk]

26. "We didn't." doesn't cut much mustard when the record bloody well...

...says we frigging well did.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Who is 'we' and what did we do?

Or were you intending to reply to another post?

[Speck Tater]

8. "Wings Over the World"

Things To Come (1933) Screenplay by H.G. Wells from his book "The Shape of Things to Come".

In a new Dark Ages "Wings Over the World", founded by scientists and engineers, emerges to rule the world from on high.

Now in public domain in the U.S. View it here: http://www.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/tuner.php?channel=855&format=movie&theme=guide

[tama]

11. Thanks! n/t

[edhopper]

22. I love that movie

H.G Wells was a great socialist thinker.

The question is, and I don't have the answer, is would it be worse than what we have now.
In this country, half the population and the politicians they vote in, work under assumptions that are 100% false and a determinant to the country and the Planet.

[rrneck]

13. It'll work great

on the planet Vulcan

Live long and prosper.

[Confusious]

17. Seems a lot of people here are poopooing something

that has never happened.

No where, at no time in human history, has there ever been a technocracy.

Mostly we've lived in oligarchies, monarchies, republics. mostly by lawyers in the first and last.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Well, I think that governments should make *use* of scientific information and generally of

information gained from systematic academic research.

But making academics and scientists the rulers? Ever observed departmental/ university politics and administration? Academics who are also capable administrators do exist, but are probably about as rare as those in government. On the whole, people who are serious researchers usually don't want to get involved in politics or administration - it takes too much time away from their research. And those who do want to be involved in institutional politics are just as likely to do so for the wrong reasons (to build their own empires or to pursue vendettas) as those from any other field who wish to be involved in institutional politics.

I do think that it would be a good thing if more politicians and government officials were scientifically trained - but it's not a panacea. Margaret Thatcher started out as a research chemist.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. I find your use of language rather odd, how is science messianic...

and how the hell can a government be "scientific"? The adjectives simply don't fit the subjects at all. Government policy should be based on empiricism and evidence based reasoning, including the scientific method.

This has absolutely nothing to do with who should be in positions of power, and it would have no influence anyways. Scientists, as individuals, are just like everyone else, prone to mistakes and such. Its the consensus building of the scientific method that works to minimize these flaws. Governments operate in completely different ways, with compromises and deal making.

Anyone can be elected to government, and as far as what role scientists play as individuals, that's up to them, but as far as institutions and groups, advisory roles suite them best.

[skepticscott]

21. And this belongs in R/T...why?

Other than the fact that some religious apologists seem to need to take potshots at science and reason whenever they can.

[tama]

31. I had a talk

with trotsky here in R/T about foundations of political decision making. I understood - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that trostky advocated a political decision making system that is totally rational and free from any flavor of mysticism and especially religion. This topic was inspired by that discussion, to question with open mind the possibility of scientific governance especially in face of the global problems that science warns us about, climate change, energy crisis, destruction of carrying capacity etc.

[skepticscott]

37. Then your OP dishonestly fails

to reflect that. "rational and free from any flavor of mysticism and especially religion" does not equate to "scientific governance". If you were truly requesting opinions bearing on that discussion, you would have asked whether people thought it was better to have a government which was based on, or informed by, religious or mystical principles, or one which was not. Why not try THAT, and see what happens?

[tama]

45. You like to nitpick

and argue, don't you? :)

[skepticscott]

46. It's a discussion board

and the purpose is to get at the truth. Sometimes that involves arguing and debating things, if you weren't aware.

And if you choose to call pointing out a fundamentally dishonest misrepresentation of your OP as nitpicking, feel free, but you won't convince many people.

[tama]

48. And

there is a truth that can't be found with constantly arguing and debating things, if you are aware.

[darkstar3]

52. Of which you have exactly no evidence or definition.

[tama]

53. We can try it, empirically ;)

[David Sky]

23. There's nothing "messianic" about science! Science is

nothing but hard work, an open mind, and logical adult thought processes working in concert with other adults to understand and improve the world around them.

Something tell's me that hard work and people working together is also a "religious" virtue and dream.

[Odin2005]

24. Plato was a RW totalitarian creep.

And his putting words in Socrates' mouth is an insult to Socrates.

[tama]

30. Open to interpretation

In the science of Hermeneutics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/) there is the founding ethical principle called "benevolent interpretation".

'Symposion' is a beautifull master piece, and 'Sofist' is still propably the deepest invitation to think further.

[Jim__]

27. I don't think world government can work.

People are too diverse and I don't believe that it is either possible or desirable to eliminate that diversity.

Off the top of my head this morning, my preference is for small communal government. Of course, one problem with that is that small communities grow and eventually the growth of one community conflicts with the growth of neighboring communities.

Government is probably too strong of a word, but, we need some type of agreement between people that each community has a right to exist; but with strict regulations on how they can grow - an attempt to avoid conflict between neighboring communities.

In the end, I think human nature itself will lead to conflict between neighboring communities. The best we may be able to do is to limit the types of weapons that people use in these conflicts; and have a body available so that communities can discuss, and hopefully resolve, their conflicts. I don't see this as a solution to the world's problems, but as a way of mitigating them. I think mitigation is the best we can do.

[tama]

33. In terms of historical dialectics

how do you see transition from current state system and global capitalistic governance to small - more or less self-sufficient - communities?

[rrneck]

28. I don't think any sort of authoritarianism is the way to go.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679748199?ie=UTF8&force-full-site=1

Saul locates the source of many of the contemporary world's problems in a perversion of reason. He argues that while Voltaire had hoped to use reason as a tool to overthrow outmoded and harsh customs, his successors instead employed reason as an instrument of social control. The will of the people was unimportant to such acolytes of reason as Napoleon, who argued that uninformed popular opinion must be regimented through the supposed dictates of reason. The result of these misguided efforts at rational planning have been the horrors of modern warfare and the depredations of industrialism. Saul attributes such varied phenomena as the arms race, the "star system," and the rise of bureaucracy to hyperrationalism. Saul, a popular novelist ( The Paradise Eater , LJ 11/1/88), has a vivid style that makes his book enjoyable reading, but a clear sense of what he means by reason never emerges. Is it anything more than a catchphrase for whatever the author dislikes?-- David Gordon, Bowling Green State Univ., Ohio"

Saul is pretty opaque but his assertion that systems have replaced monarchs and technocrats have become courtiers leaves a haunting awareness when I look at the outrages perpetrated in the world today.

Seeking a system separate from the human experience to better manage them has led to some of the worst horrors in human history.

Come to think of it, here's another book you might like:

http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316968595&sr=1-1

While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom of the masses, the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that"under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people n them." To support this almost counterintuitive proposition, Surowieck explores problems involving cognition(we're all trying to identify a correct answer), coordination (we need to synchronize our individual activities with others) and cooperation (we have to act together despite our self- to act together despite our self-interest). His rubric, then, covers a range of problems, including driving in traffic, competing on TV game shows, maximizing stock market performance, voting for political candidates, navigating busy sidewalks, tracking SARS and designing Internet search engines like Google. If four basic conditions are met, a crowd's "collective intelligence" will produce better outcomes than a small group of experts, Surowiecki says, even if members of the crowd don't know all the facts or choose, individually, to act irrationally. "Wise crowds" need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people's errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are "smarter" than if a single expert had been in charge. Surowiecki's style is pleasantly informal, a tactical disguise for what might otherwise be rather dense material. He offers a great introduction to applied behavioral economics and game theory.

[tama]

32. There is a strong

undercurrent of anarchism also inside the Academic hierarchies and philosophy of science. Do you think that science would evolve better in non-hierarchic and anti-authoritarian form of self-organization and collective intelligence?

[rrneck]

34. No

Any government based on a characteristic mandated by fiat be it rationality or faith will inevitably accrue to itself increasing power to reinforce its vision.

Scientists are just human beings like all the rest of us and subject to the same failures and foibles as anybody else. Turning them into the high priests of science would result in the same horrors as any other tyranny.

[tama]

35. Plato's Academy

was officially a religious organization. The modern academic titles - BA, Doctor etc. - have been often compared to "religious" or other initiations - and "fringe" scientists constantly complain against "popes" of this and that field of science. So isn't the situation allready somewhat similar as to what you describe?

[rrneck]

36. No.

For that analogy to work you'd have to ignore about a thousand years of history.

Scientists are human and subject to every human foible. Utopian societies don't work for that reason. Often as not people don't cooperate for rational reasons. Most of the time they do it because it feels good as well. Trying to create some sort of rationality based society leaves out half the human experience.

[tama]

39. Are you hinting

that emotions are more important that how they are rationalized? And that politics is more about controlling and manipulating emotions that rational behaviour?

[rrneck]

40. No.

Politics depends on emotions because human interaction depends on them. Politics also depends empirical evidence because human interaction depends on that as well. Either can be used for good or ill.

We have to have a government that is responsive to and responsible for both. There is no such thing as a benign despotism.

[skepticscott]

41. Please point us to some examples

of where fringe scientists complain against "popes", using that exact word. If you can't, your analogy is pretty much made-up nonsense.

[tama]

42. I'll do even better

this editor of Nature nominated Himself:

"When the book A New Science of Life by British biologist Rupert Sheldrake was published in 1981, proposing the theory of morphic resonance instead of DNA as the basis for shapes and behavior in nature, Maddox denounced it fiercely in an editorial titled "A book for burning?"<7> He elaborated in a 1994 BBC documentary on Sheldrake's theory: "I was so offended by it, that I said that while it's wrong that books should be burned, in practice, if book burning were allowed, this book would be a candidate (...) I think it's dangerous that people should be allowed by our liberal societies to put that kind of nonsense into currency. It's unnecessary to introduce magic into the explanation from physical and biological phenomenon when in fact there is every likelihood that the continuation of research as it is now practiced will indeed fill all the gaps that Sheldrake draws attention to. You see, Sheldrake's is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy".<8>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maddox#The_Sheldrake_editorial_1981

[skepticscott]

43. Sorry, you did even worse

Your claim was that: "fringe" scientists constantly complain against "popes" of this and that field of science.

The quote you used was NOT a complaint from a fringe scientist, but from someone condemning a fringe scientist. And Maddox did not refer to anyone as a "pope" of any field of science, he simply said that Sheldrake could be condemned using the same language that popes used against Galileo.

Next time, you might want to consider understanding something yourself before you post it to support your argument.

So try again. Give us some examples of this thing that happens "constantly".

[tama]

44. You like to argue

and nitpick, don't you? :)

[skepticscott]

47. Your claim was a blatant falsehood

that you made up out of thin air to try to make an argument. Try honesty next time, if you don't like being rolled over.

[tama]

49. I prefer

rolling a joint instead of engaging a Battle of Words with your "rolling over" attitude. Rock and roll, hope you don't get too disappointed.

[tama]

50. Rollin and puffin

wondering about something you said, about trying to convince people. Was not awere of trying to do convincing.

What are you trying to convince me about? That I can be stupid and dishonest? Sure thing, pal, would never deny that. Am I to understand that you genuinely care about my spiritual etc. well-being by trying to convince me that I'm stupid and dishonest? Is that all you see in me? Really, all you can see? And what do you see in the mirror, when you take a look?

Do you see an angry man or friendly man? If you see friendly man, then what is this face you are showing me?

[tama]

51. One more thing about convincing

I'll share a little secret with you, call it wanking if you like. I'm not really interested in what other people think. I have got enough thoughts in my own head rolling to think about what others think. I just like to write, and what I write satisfies my own aesthetic sence and twisted sense of humor and I'm my own best audience - not that I don't enjoy occational applause for my art when it's due. I'm just being true to myself - warts and all. And do you wanna know a funny thing? Being true to one's self is a form of truth that can also be very convincing. Funnily enough... :)

[Deep13]

38. So how would we mere mortals know which ubermen to pick?

The problem with any elitist, authoritarian government is that the elites have the same shortcomings as the rest of us humans.