Neil deGrasse Tyson: #Rationalia should govern the world

[JimC]

What does that have to do with science?

Nothing to do with the true nature of science as a method of rational empiricism with limited goals, but everything to do with the mistaken ideological seizure of science as a political paradigm...

[pErvinalia]

But that's my point. The OP is confusing science with politics.

[cronus]

What does that have to do with science?

Nothing to do with the true nature of science as a method of rational empiricism with limited goals, but everything to do with the mistaken ideological seizure of science as a political paradigm...

...from a profession that tolerates the astrology of statistics, it's countless regressions and sins.

[JimC]

But that's my point. The OP is confusing science with politics.

Results from good scientific analysis can inform political decision making (and should do more so), but are not some holy book of uncontested truth, handed down from an elite...

[JimC]

What does that have to do with science?

Nothing to do with the true nature of science as a method of rational empiricism with limited goals, but everything to do with the mistaken ideological seizure of science as a political paradigm...

...from a profession that tolerates the astrology of statistics, it's countless regressions and sins.

I treat statistics with the careful, sceptical regard that is required, if one knows the underlying mathematics and (vitally) assumptions.

Do you, Crumple?

[Hermit]

What does that have to do with science?

Marx and Engels said their socialism is scientific. Lenin Stalin and Mao, among others killed in the name of it. "Stalin and Mao murdered tens of millions in pursuit of Marx's scientific socialism" is not a dumb thing to say. Certainly not in so far as they did so in the name of scientific socialism.

The OP is confusing science with politics.

The author of the linked article argues that even people who say they use science to do social engineering inevitably finish up doing politics. Neil deGrasse Tyson is totally wrong if he even thinks you can have a science-based society. It's been attempted many times, and always turned out to be fundamentally political with but a veneer of science to serve as justification.

[cronus]

What does that have to do with science?

Nothing to do with the true nature of science as a method of rational empiricism with limited goals, but everything to do with the mistaken ideological seizure of science as a political paradigm...

...from a profession that tolerates the astrology of statistics, it's countless regressions and sins.

I treat statistics with the careful, sceptical regard that is required, if one knows the underlying mathematics and (vitally) assumptions.

Do you, Crumple?

Half the time I do and half the time I don't which means I must doesn't it?

[pErvinalia]

What does that have to do with science?

Marx and Engels said their socialism is scientific.

But it's not (rigorous) science, that's the point.

Lenin Stalin and Mao, among others killed in the name of it. "Stalin and Mao murdered tens of millions in pursuit of Marx's scientific socialism" is not a dumb thing to say. Certainly not in so far as they did so in the name of scientific socialism

You seem to have missed the point of the article. It wasn't to enlighten us with the common knowledge that Stalin and Mao killed millions. It was trying to tar science to an extent due to the people who allegedly employed it. The point I'm making is that they DIDN'T employ it. Not least because Stalin and Mao weren't scientists. But even more critically because the so called "scientific socialism" of Marx and Engels was nothing of the sort in terms of rigorous science.

.

The OP is confusing science with politics.

The author of the linked article argues that even people who say they use science to do social engineering inevitably finish up doing politics.

What people? None of the people named were objective scientists.

[DaveDodo007]

The Rationalia Fallacy.

Why is everyone picking on us, it's not fair.

[Hermit]

The OP is confusing science with politics.

The author of the linked article argues that even people who say they use science to do social engineering inevitably finish up doing politics.

What people? None of the people named were objective scientists.

Exactly. The author of the linked article argues that even people who say they use science to do social engineering inevitably finish up doing politics. Neil deGrasse Tyson is totally wrong if he even thinks you can have a science-based society. It's been attempted many times, and always turned out to be fundamentally political with but a veneer of science to serve as justification.

[pErvinalia]

That's because scientists weren't in charge.

And in the case of Stalin and Mao, they weren't even using science.

[Hermit]

That's because scientists weren't in charge.

If they were, they'd be doing politics. You can't do government without some non-scientific presumptions that serve as foundations.

[pErvinalia]

Well you could, but it will be a dictatorship of sorts. And as unstable as most other dictatorships I'd guess.

[JimC]

It's not a matter of scientists being in charge, but that scientific results should inform the political debate to a much greater extent than presently happens...

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's not a matter of scientists being in charge, but that scientific results should inform the political debate to a much greater extent than presently happens...

Agreed. As a species we've been bumbling around basically doing whatever our leaders happened to find gratifying. The planet is fairly forgiving of that sort of behavior, but we should never forget the story of the Rapa Nui. Most of our decisions/actions up to now have resulted in progress, but our heedlessness means that we are also progressing toward something like a world-wide Easter Island. Paying more attention to what we've learned through science could help change our course to something more livable with much better prospects for the long term.