Big news: the editors of Seed have officially endorsed Barack Obama for President. OK, not surprising, I suppose…any organization that relies on or promotes scientific thinking has absolutely no choice in this election, so Obama is going to get the nod.
I do like one specific statement in the endorsement:
Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method. Science is a lens through which we can and should visualize and solve complex problems, organize government and multilateral bodies, establish international alliances, inspire national pride, restore positive feelings about America around the globe, embolden democracy, and ultimately, lead the world. More than anything, what this lens offers the next administration is a limitless capacity to handle all that comes its way, no matter how complex or unanticipated.
If you have an alternative way of governing, please do tell us about it in the comments.
I never thought about science as a “method of governing” before. This is a really insightful comment.
You could actually make an argument that science is a “conservative” discipline, in that there is an automatic skepticism inherent in the scientific method.
(Fox mode)Don’t you know, that by endorsing Obama, you’re leading us one step closer to Pol Pot and Stalin. You count yourselves free, but next thing you know, the Islamists will be dragging you out of your homes for failing to agree with them. It’s just one step away if you elect this Marxist as President.(/Fox mode)
I guess reality really does have a liberal bias. Of course, electoral success has been inversely correlated with postive changes in reality for some time now. Experience is useful only if you actually listen to it – if you ignore it, your experience only testifies to your ignorance.
If you have an alternative way of governing, please do tell us about it in the comments.
Well, you invoke your deity for guidance. If you’ve not got a voice in your head that you think is this deity, then you ask one of your deity’s agents to guide you.
Peple with other deities, well, you can always bomb them if they start to get out of line.
Me, I’d govern using rationality, philosophy, the constitution, human values (generally not derivable from science), and human purpose (also not generally derivable from science).
For all of the anti-science nonsense that I dislike, there’s always a scientism that I dislike equally.
Science has a lot to contribute to governance, but it will not tell you if slavery is right or wrong, or whether or not we should attack Canada, fight Nazis, or stop Rwandan genocide (which, unfortunately, we failed to do anyway).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I can hardly believe it. I’d never thought a free western government would do this.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html
[quote]AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.
The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.
The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.
[/[quote]
Cue the petulant losers whining about how they’re never coming back here, and then coming back to see how we respond.
sounds an awful lot like fact-scism to me.
There was a good article in New Scientist about Reason-based governing a few months back. It’s a shame that politicians don’t look to scientists and more rational methods before making decisions. As Penn Jillette said “popular sure doesn’t mean right”
If something unpleasant happens, pretend it didn’t happen. Call anyone who remarks on it “un-American”. When the stink is too horrific and persistent to ignore, blame it on your opponents.
If you ignore your principles repeatedly, bring them up obliquely in public (usually by claiming your opponents have betrayed them) while pretending in official documents that they never existed, so that your believers don’t care that you lied, and the newbies don’t know that you can’t be trusted as far as they can throw an…elephant.
I’m really annoyed about it. First when they said it was “opt-out” I was opposed as any filtering should be opt-in and at a browser level. But now it’s emerged that “opt-out” isn’t really opt-out at all. Fuck Stephen Fielding!
“Sen. Obama’s embrace of transparency and evidence-based decision-making, his intelligence and curiosity echo this new way of looking at the world. And that is what we should be weighing in the voting booth”
LOL
I know that the majority here supports the Democratic candidate by default, but come on…. this is ridiculous. Senator Obama has run anything but a transparent campaign. I can think of numerous skeletons in the closet he has actively tried to suppress and then disowned when he no longer could. Anyone observing this election campaign in a non biased perspective would have to admit he is no different than any other politician. His dirty tactics are just glossed over by an incredibly complicit media.
Then again, how many fellow Democrats do I know who continually tell me how pro-women’s rights they are in one breath before telling me what a c*nt Sarah Palin is in the next. Oh my god, she has a different viewpoint than me, I guess that makes it ok to attack her with sexist stereotypes.
My biggest fear is he will win, and then all of the BS surrounding his financing will come out and he will be impeached. And, that makes me sad, because he didn’t even need to use those ‘interesting’ credit card tactics to win, and yet he still did. Transparent indeed. Transparently political.
That’s a great way of governing. Too bad we don’t have any candidates to vote for who agree with that.
The way the last administration has handled things, we might as well have a chaotocracy — government by chance.
If a decision needs to be made, flip a coin, roll some dice, ‘eeny meeny miny moe’…
Lindsay Libertarian,
Typical. Criticism of Obama devolves into personal attacks thinly veiled suspicions that he’s some kind of boogeyman. Where are the criticisms of his policies.
You do have criticisms of those right? Or is it above you to argue them.
Yes PZ, wonderful. And thank you Seed for that message. I think it should be said more often that science is much more than “studying fruit flies” – for instance. Its applied methodology reveals insight on how to perceive and address any aspect of our lives that need repeatable answers. That being said, as emotional creatures there certainly are aspects of humanity that will not lend themselves to such applications, which is fine. But to accurately identify which those are, using the scientific method would be needed.
To be fair, that opinion of Sarah Palin is backed by some pretty solid arguments. And calling someone a cunt isn’t taking a position on women’s rights (for or against). It’s merely indicating a great deal of dislike and contempt for the person so-labelled. Unless the speaker is Australian, in which case, it could also be a term of endearment.
The “sexist stereotpyes” argument doesn’t play well with your argument. Would you feel better if we referred to McCain as an ignorant cunt, too? Because I’m quite comfortable making that statement. Now, if you wanted to take issue with some of the comments made here that were sexist, you’d likely have a solid argument. But just calling her names that correspond to parts of human anatomy (male or female) isn’t sexism.
Can who governs do it without using the word ’embolden’? It irritates me.
Oh, and fuck the Australian politicians supporting internet censorship. All the opposition party will have to do to guarantee they get back in next time ’round is to promise they’ll ditch it. I’ll vote for them – for the first time ever – if that’s the case.
Agreed. Obama is a politician, no more, no less. He may be smarter than the average politician, better at delivering oratory or explaining his positions, but in the end, he’s just a politician. Why this should be held against him, however, is beyond me. They’re all politicians! So’s McCain, Palin, both Clintons, Dubya, and your local town comptroller. If you don’t want to vote for a politician, who are you going to vote for?
Whimsy.
#17: That’d be fine, but if your conservatives are as trustworthy as ours (at least the Republican ones), then their word isn’t worth a pile of fossilized dog doo. You’d have to convince ours that censoring the Internet might prevent them from stopping “teh Gayz” in order to have a chance to convince them to cease the censorship, and that’s unlikely. Maybe yours are less evil.
What’s this “lead the world” bit about? I think I can speak for most of us in that we prefer to lead ourselves, thank you very much.
“If you have an alternative way of governing, please do tell us about it in the comments. ”
Reading chicken entrails.
kai @21
Perhaps the intent was to express a desire to lead by achievement, not by authority or rule. For instance, the U.S. is a world leader of aerospace technology.
In America, the principal method of governing, over the last 8 years, has been reactionary madness.
“…has been reactionary madness.”
Hmmm…IMO there’s too much sophistication with that characterization. I’m going with “inept buffoonery” myself.
Science can inspire national pride, yes, but why waste the effort? If you want to inspire national pride, all you have to do is put your right hand over your heart and wave an American flag with your left hand.
Done.
asb:
I suggest those who agree with ‘Lindsay Libertarian’ write-in Zombie Ann Rand.
Oops. Sorry, I intended:
I suggest those who agree with ‘Lindsay Libertarian’ write-in Zombie Ayn Rand.
Scientific thinking is virtually identical to critical thinking. When framed this way, it doesn’t seem so outlandish to govern through scientific principles.
And yes, it’s a conservative viewpoint. (By definition — “conservative” stems from “conserve”, which is what happens in science if the new idea proposed doesn’t pass muster. If science weren’t conservative, error analysis and peer-review would be easy or even absent). The sad part is, the word “conservative” has been perverted by the right into something entirely unscientific (and indeed, anti-scientific).
Hey PZ – just so you know, the GOP has started atheist baiting!
Yes, we should insist that they use “embiggen” instead, which is, after all, a perfectly cromulent word.
Hap, #20
Australia appears to becoming more conservative; the proposed filtering is the work of the more left-wing party (Labor), which is in power here at the moment.
The main problem is that there’s the Senator who they need to suck up to – and who, because of the balance of power, they might need to get things passed – belongs to a party called Family First, who – as you can no doubt guess – is a virulently (and vilely) Christian group. These are some charming people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, many rights for homosexuals (in terms of adoption, marriage, IVF etc.) and favours a zero-tolerance approach to drugs. They’ve very keen to censor.
But I wouldn’t say our conservatives (in general) are anywhere as evil as those in the US – yet.
If you have an alternative way of governing, please do tell us about it in the comments.
rock paper sissors
I have an alternate way of governing, maggot! It’s called hordes of orcs issuing from my citadel of Dol Guldor to trample your science-loving asses under their iron-shod feet. Feel my wrath!
of course science as a method(i.e. the rational, unemotional evaluation of available evidence and theories) can tell you how to act in those situations. evaluating the pros ands cons of the continued existence of Canada (or Nazi-Germany’s) will most likely tell you that Canada is harmless to itself and others, freely shares its resources, etc. and that fighting it will not be worth it in terms of human and financial terms as well as in terms of international relations. on the other hand, a militaristic, genocidal regime that is actively spreading by conquering, killing and subjugating your allies should be stopped before it spreads any further and becomes a global force*.
also, there’s ample evidence that slavery brings more suffering than good. and before you say that human suffering/wellbeing doesn’t fall within the scope of science… well, last i checked the social sciences are sciences, too. and a good number of them deal precisely with human well-being or lack thereof.
the only thing the scientific method wouldn’t be too good in is in getting you elected. for that, blatant emotional appeal seems a lot more effective. (unless you can scientifically decide which fluffy lies would get you elected best…)
*how to stop such a force is of course also to be determined by rational decision making. neither kneejerk militarism nor narrow-minded isolationist “not-our-problem” is a valid method. of course after a war has already started, an enemy needs to be made to surrender to stop him. but before the war… well, the 20’s and 30’s were full of opportunities to prevent the situation from getting that far. it’s just that no-one gave a fuck until it was too late.
Oija board?
I’m trying to decide if science is a valid way of governing. Scientific thinking, using the scientific method as a way of problem solving – yes, I can see that one. But I suppose that’s what the editorial meant.
Another method of governance? Maybe rolling a pair of dice? It’s almost as good as asking the voices inside your head what they think you should do – like we’ve had for the past almost 8 years.
Fixed that for you.
@llewelly,
I swear I read “Ann Rand” as “Ann Coulter” the first time.
Anyone wanna buy me glasses?
#20: Why do left-leaning people in Australia want to censor the Internet? I know people want to play with China, and they figure that if they don’t prevent China’s dissidents from getting an airing, China won’t play with them. The problem, though, is that the Internet has allowed lots of people who aren’t socially acceptable (gays, atheists, etc.) to assemble and gain power (at least the power to endure and thrive, let alone political power) – while lots of people they don’t agree with can also use these means, censoring the means is more likely to hurt their constituents than those of more conservative policies (who likely desire something closer to older social structures, into which they could fit in and gather more readily).
This seems counterproductive for liberals (and, in the long run, either for those countries that need the help if fascism in our time can’t be made to work, and for all, if those countries prove that it can).
I’m no fan of McCain but there are issues I take serious issue with Obama about. He is the more religious candidate who wants to spend more on faith based initiatives than Bush. He has no intention of balancing the budget. Yeah that budget is a big one with me. Both of these guys want to actually increase the deficit. I just can’t give a nod to that.
I knew it! You mad scientists are out to rule the world!!
Magic Eight Ball?
My army is bigger therefore ye must obey me. :)
I think science is inherently conservative. It should be difficult to overthrow existing successful theories. Replacing them with newer ones should require surprising and novel predictions verified repeatedly using the scientific method. I agree that scientism (the belief that everything of value in the world can be explained scientifically) is untrue. I do not think that using the scientific method will ever rid the world of religion, metaphysics, or pseudoscience. The importance of basic science to continue to come up with discoveries that can be transformed in to useful technology should guarantee its continued support at the private and public level. Any time someone calls science “evil” or that scientists are in league with Satan (such as Mr. Berlinski, or our nominal Republican veep), it should be pointed out that they are covered from head to toe in technology. Hypocrites.
Hap wrote:
I don’t know. I think the original aim was to try and win over some of the ‘family values’ crowd by saying they’d try to cut down on the kiddie porn (which would be fine by me), but it’s gone from them providing net-nanny-esque software for free – which didn’t work very well and was hacked in about 3 minutes by a half-bright teenager – to them trying to get it blocked as ISP levels.
A lot of it is to do with the fact they don’t have a clear majority and rely on the independants/minor parties to get bills passed. Which I’m mostly in favour of, since I dislike the two-party system – but when they’re kissing the ass of a right-wing god-botherer who sees this as a way to win brownie points with jesus then I get a bit annoyed.
The ISP people are going nuts, though. They’ve estimated it’ll cost millions and slow data transmission by something like 86%. And probably do very little to stop the really determined people getting what they want while irritating the crap out of everyone else.
Glen @ 4:
You are being too strict with your “generally not derivable from science” proviso — you make it sounds as if we are talking strict mathematical logic rather than the set of principles that guide the scientific method.
More to the point, science (specifically, ev-psych) does a decent job of explaining why us humans have the values we tend to share, and it is getting better at explaining it all the time. Using it as a basis for dealing with human values, motives, etc. would probably be better than the musings and ideology of Joe Random Congressperson.
oooh, scientism. Pray tell, in fields you think are dominated by a “scientistic” viewpoint, what is your “better” alternative?
Those are, ultimatly, value judgments, to be sure. Science (or rather, scientific methods of inquiry) is an awesome way of getting tons of background information that can help you make those value judgments, however, and make them in a way that is backed by real-world evidence, not just by philosophical musings, however brilliant-seeming.
A way of governing? Sure! Create an enemy. It can be internal or external, concrete or abstract, real or imaginary… But it has to embody everything that is evil and wicked. And then, if things go wrong, you blame that enemy. It someone says that things went wrong because of some screw up of yours, you contend that to be the enemy’s propaganda. And if anyone dares to oppose some of your power grabs… Why, it is a traitor on the enemy’s payroll! To jail with him!
It works wonders. It has been practiced since the dawn of time, and it is still applied all over the world, without anyone getting the wiser.
When too much grease on our potatoes is the problem, science suggests using less grease.
When too much government has become the problem, Obama fans want more government.
Nothing “scientific” about being sycophantic…
Peter is here, crying wolf while sheep are being eaten…
Are you a sheep?
@Hap,40
Because the ultraconservative politician who holds the balance of power in the senate is as described in #32 the current govt need to curry favor with him to get stuff passed
Yeah, some day I’m going to find out why scientism is bad. Seems like most of the time I hear “that’s scientism”, it’s being used as a pejorative by some wackaloon religious nut.
Another thing I want to know is why New Mexico and Colorado are blue, when they’re surrounded by a sea of red.
Human society tends to become quickly dissatisfied with rational leadership, right-wingnuts are an example, nearly as loony as left-wingnuts. If ever we stumble across something that works well, it’s “improved” beyond function. By all means, campaign for scientific leadership, it would be a good thing, but don’t be surprised when it takes a spanner in the spokes.
If Barack Obama turns out to be a veiled technocrat, I will be pleasantly surprised.
@#2:
Actually, I think it’s the other way around. Or, more accurately, a centrist/left leaning bias tends to be grounded in reality. Extremes of liberalism and conservatism both avoid reality, but it seems to me that a conservative point of view tends to ignore reality in favor of religion or tradition.
Maybe that’s just my bias, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_government
it seems to me that a conservative point of view tends to ignore reality in favor of religion or tradition.
Depends what you mean by “conservative”. Libertarian conservatism, to which I subscribe, is firmly grounded in material reality. Libertarians are firmly in favour of a separation of church and state; whatever one’s personal beliefs, it isn’t the proper role of government to impose the religious and moral values of a particular sect on society as a whole. Nor are we reactionary or obsessed with tradition; we believe in abolishing traditional institutions where they unnecessarily limit freedom. We believe, first and foremost, in individual freedom and responsibility, limited government, free trade, and personal choice.
Really? Human values can be derived from science? I know that you imply otherwise elsewhere, but you can’t resist setting up your strawman, since you can’t deal with what I actually wrote.
You are the one trying to make my position into one of strict mathematical logic as the basis, without, of course, you being able to do anything but assert such a dishonest claim.
Were you to understand anything about it, “scientism” doesn’t refer to any “field” dominated by “scientistic viewpoint.” Learn what words mean, and can the mindless attacks.
Oh, very good, you managed to repeat in far more words than I took to write “Science has a lot to contribute to governance.” If you ever want to attack anything but strawmen, maybe you’ll have something intelligent to say.
A truly major strawman is your “just by philosophical musings.” It takes a creationist level of dishonesty to throw that bullshit out there.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
‘Lead the world’ – As a representative of The World, we’d rather you didn’t have a try at that. Stick to your own country. Thanks though.
And having said that – Go Obama!
Ric – Get stuffed.
#54: I was being biased. Recent history of Republican and Democratic presidents (and Congresses, as well) has not rousingly endorsed the idea of Republicans being wedded to reality – they have had to ignore rather a lot to maintain their way of governing (in Reagan’s case, the growing deficit which was a consequence of not being able to pass a budget with spending cuts which would have paid for the tax cuts he got; in Bush Jr.’s case, it’s the budget, Iraq, his oath of office (that part about protecting and defending the Constitution), environmental data, etc., etc., etc.). Clinton (IMO) didn’t do enough of the things I would have liked, but he was smart enough to let go of his conceptions when they failed to meet reality (or the polls’) demands. (I don’t know that the latter is that good – there are things that will not change, no matter how much we don’t like them, and bending to the polls on those is much of the reason why we are in the situation we are.)
I don’t know if Obama would be a good President – he doesn’t have all that much experience. On the other hand, McCain has a lot, but hasn’t learned too much from it. The most troubling Republican trait of recent history is the inability to learn from reality and the unwillingness to face it. While we have had little courage to face the problems we have (which is why the R’s have gotten elected), they have gone above and beyone any reasonable call of duty in avoiding contact with facts and logic. Obama might actually learn from experience and change his choices as a result, which would be a substantial improvement over the current Administration and its enablers.
Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords?
Walton is stuffed.
It got really stuffy in here.
Less government generates its own problems. 150 years ago there was a lot less government than there is today. There was also unequal protection under the law for blacks and women, child labor, and the social safety net was woefully inadequate. Old age and disability meant grinding poverty for most Americans. Environmental protection wasn’t even given lip service. Patent medicines, which sometimes were just colored water, were commonplace. Tainted food was sold. Trusts and other oligopolies controlled the economy, which was great if you were at the top but horrible if you were anywhere close to the bottom.
Is there too much government? Quite likely. However, if you want to reduce government, then you have to be specific about what you’re going to reduce or eliminate. Then explain in some detail why those particular parts should be reduced or eliminated. Discuss who is going to benefit from the reduction or elimination and who will not benefit. Lastly, describe what will be done for those people who will not benefit from the reduction or elimination.
Science is a lens through which we can and should visualize and solve complex problems, organize government and multilateral bodies, establish international alliances, inspire national pride, restore positive feelings about America around the globe, embolden democracy, and ultimately, lead the world.
This is a pretty crappy sentence. The “lens” metaphor fits well enough with “visualize and solve complex problems”, after that, it doesn’t work. You establish international alliances through a lens? Then, who is this “we”? Scientists? Americans? The editors of Seed? In any of these cases, what gives this “we” the right to lead the world? Arrogant sods.
werd to that, though I think it’s partially Kevin Rudd too. He went after that values crowd in order to get elected and he’s stuck pretty stubbornly to it (see: Bill Henderson). It’s playing on moral panic, it’s just another fear campaign. But yeah, it seems to me that it’s to get the approval of Stephen Fielding on other issues. But there’s also Nick Xenophon and the Greens who need to vote for it as well so pandering to the extreme right is no guarantee. Though it does invite members of the coalition to side with it.
In any way, it’s a disasterous policy and it comes at a time when we are already lagging behind the rest of the developed world in terms of internet speeds. Why would slowing them down even further with an ineffective filter that doesn’t censor all the bad and does sensor some of the good be even a viable option? The whole thing reeks of a nanny state; parents having their own personal responsibility allievated. It’s really quite sickening, especially as they want to block in the opt-out system hardcore pornography – which is perfectly legal in the ACT!
Obama for smoker’s rights…rah, rah!!
When it comes to tough decisions I usually like to slaughter an ox, gorge on the meat, and leave the bones out in the sun for a month or so.
Oh hold it, that’s just a hobby… You said governing?
[…] and ultimately, lead the world.
That’s what I’m afraid of.
That’s because he’s stupid.
Although he refers to McCain as a “joker”, my father apparently recommends him as the leadership we need. Along with Palin, of course. Dad also recommends capitalism, which he says liberals want to destroy. (Science is a problem for Dad, because scientists don’t worship God enough.) Liberals want socialism, you see. And liberals create poverty. I begged to disagree. Poke at me and I poke back. But we’ll be on speaking terms again soon. Maybe after the election.
Patricia! Thanksgiving is next month.
That said, I’m sure the moistened bint would have the good taste to lob the scimitar at Obama.
@25 Are you sure that the term is not ‘adept buffoonery.’ GW was (such a great verb) not a buffoon. His primary objective was to ‘enrichin’ himself and his associates. His secondary objective was to damage the machinery of government. He was probably also planning on just ‘living the presidential lifestyle’ TM). When 9/11 occurred, he was actually required to govern which he did from ideology not rationality. We all know the rest. He succeeded beyond his wettest dreams in his two objectives.
Alternate way to govern: Ochlotheocracy- elect McLame and Failin and we are a step closer to religious mob rule.
Ayn Rand couldn’t have been elected President because she wasn’t a US citizen by birth.
I’m not sure about Zombie Ayn Rand. Does anyone know how they determine citizenship for the undead? Do you keep the citizenship you were born with, or do you acquire the citizenship of the country where you’re resurrected? I checked a whole bunch of websites but couldn’t get a clear answer.
Re #61 and #73, in case there’s anyone who isn’t familiar with the reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0
So far as I can recall he was stuffed last Thanksgiving too. ;o)
If the intertubes get censored in Oz does that mean Bride of Shrek can’t make anymore slutty remarks here? That’s just too much!
Nah, this site should be safe.
Guy Fawkes Day can’t come quickly enough for me! Among other things, it’ll mean an END to the current gubernatorial campaign ads.
There are plenty of reasons to question our incumbent, and more than a few policies with which I have problems, but so help me Hannah her challenger’s ads make him a lying, cheating sleazebag of a slimeball…
But no details, ’cause I want to keep my supper down.
The MadPanda, FCD
Have to agree with Nick Gotts above. The editors of seed are overreaching, to put it mildly. Use science to fucking “inspire national pride”? Give me a fucking break. Science “belongs” to no nation. And the less “national pride” across the board the better. How about use science as an example that commitment to humanity should be the ultimate value that we should aspire towards? Arrogant sods (as Nick Gotts said)? Amen to that
@55, the question was about alternative way of governing, rather than what government by scientists is called. I personally like the idea of meritocracy.
I think it would be great to govern by fiat. But I’m not sure if I should get the 4-door or hatchback.
It isn’t over until the mad church lady goes back to Alaska.
Obama, McCain and the “shy conservatives”
Get stuffed
Repent, Harlequin! [/ticktock]
Alternative methods of governing? I can think of several offhand:
(1) Ask George W what he would do, then do the opposite.
(2) Base all decisions on whether the groundhog sees his shadow or not.
(3) Make decision, build time machine, go forward in time to see if it works.
(4) Burn bodies of your enemies; read their ashes to figure your next move.
Of course, #4 is the preferred neo-con methodology anyway, so that one isn’t exactly novel.
Ooh, now the tensor is getting tenser! <riff>
“As Penn Jillette said ‘popular sure doesn’t mean right’ ”
I like Jillette as an entertainer, and a disciple of Randi, but politically, he’s still subject to a whole heap of Bullshit coming out of his mouth. Sometimes I wonder whether I’m listening to an enlightened, science-minded individual, or a backwards-assed Ron Paulogist or South Park Republican when he talks politics. Smarm is no substitute for good ideas.
I had a better way of governing, but there wasn’t enough room for it in the margin. ;-)
Agreed.
Canada is harmless to itself and others
Well, mostly harmless.
Libertarian conservatism, to which I subscribe, is firmly grounded in material reality
Keep telling yourself that.
Gut thinking! Its all about the guts. I mean so what if we all went to Taco Bell for lunch, we must blast into the next battleground as fast and uncomfortably as possible. At least thats what my guts is telling me.
Personally I think the ideal form of government* is the one where everyone does exactly what I tell them too…but for some reason it doesn’t seem to have taken off.
*ideal for ME, that is
I think I peed a little when I read that.
That’s funny. Marxists say the same thing about historical materialism.
Keep telling yourself that.
Why do people find freedom so frightening?
It’s almost like the religious nuts who find atheism so frightening, because ‘without God, you can’t be moral’
Australia with its third-world health system and IT infrastructure is about to make itself even more the laughing stock of the civilized world by censoring its citizen’s internet access,thereby reducing the speeds even more,increasing the prices which are ludicrously high compared to everywhere else already,and not preventing a single person from accessing what they want to access(proxies,PtP etc)while annoying everyone else in the process.
But its going to be summer soon,real aussies go to the beach and watch the horseraces,noone cares about Internet….
Its pathetic,really.
Aaaaaaaaaaand we regress.
Why, yes, yes I do (for broad values of “governing” – I have no interest in being governed nor in governing others): participatory democracy. Reason and evidence should be used in decision-making, and there are values important to scientific practice that are useful for or fundamental to democratic practice. Neither of these is the same thing as scientific governance. Truthfully, I found the latter part of Seed’s statement extremely creepy, though I think this is generally the result of bad writing (though the imperialistic overtones appear not to have been).
A reminder, from Bakunin’s God and the State:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html
Wehpudicabok — nice one!
clinteas, no quibbles about the proposed Internet filtering (here’s my rant about it), but while in your opinion we may have a “third-world health system”, (according to the CIA world factbook) the life expectancy at birth in Australia is 81.53 years for a rank of 7th worldwide, whilst in the USA it’s 78.14 years for a rank of 46th.
Oh well, I suppose the CIA is not that credible, eh? ;)
So that’s why Kevin Rudd wants the regional broadband scheme; to fasten the internet enough so it balances out the slowdown from the bad filtering systems.
I’m glad my provider (Internode) is sticking it to the government, the whole concept is a terrible idea implemented by people who don’t know much about the technology they are using. “The internet is not a dump truck, it’s a vessel for child pornography”
“”Why do people find freedom so frightening?
It’s almost like the religious nuts who find atheism so frightening, because ‘without God, you can’t be moral'””
The evidence for too much government is everywhere, yet, big government liberals press on, trying to give the state more and more power…
Let’s just name a few wars that “government” was behind. WW2. (yes, I used the Hitler example!)
Vietnam. (How does it sit with a liberal that our oh so powerful government was instrumental in killing a couple of million Vietnamese peasants?)
Iraq…
What has a powerful central government done that local governments could not do on their own?
Regulate trade.
Protect our borders… (oops! Not that one…)
Protect us from chemical harm and our food supply… (Oops!)
Go overseas and bomb brown people and get involved in other people’s countries, often causing great unrest and massive amounts of death and destruction…
There ya go.
Powerful central governments and their groupies have nothing to do with good government.
Only bigger fuck ups.
big government liberals press on
…and the ignorant fucks continue to spew nonsense.
do tell us, wunderkind, who gave us the biggest increases in government and government spending over the last 30 years.
hint:
the fist starts with “R”, and the second starts with “G”
Powerful central governments and their groupies have nothing to do with good government.
well, why don’t you go all fix all the world’s problems on your own then, wunderkind?
go hide in your log cabin, would ya?
Ichthyic, your typo is singularly apposite :)
Dear P.Z:
Don’t you know that science just leads to killing people?”
Sincerely,
Ben Stein
“America hell-bent on acquiring lens of world domination”
The best form of governing would be the benevolent dictatorship with, ahem…me as dictator. I promise to be benevolent…I swear!
You can make a very strong argument for eugenics or pre-birth genetic test using scientific rational.
Really.
And at best, science does not speak to the should or should not of these practices.
So, you can say science is a system of government or a set of moral values. They are just facts to be used within a set of moral systems, the determination of which is outside the bounds of scientific inquiry.
Cephalanomancy
My sister just suggested reading the entrails of virgin sacrifices as an alternative form of government.
I don’t think it will work though. After all these years of abstinence only health ed where are you going to find that many virgins?
Malcolm,
That’s the beauty of it, there’s more born every day…
<ducks>
Alternative ways of governing?
1) Mathematocracy. “Let us assume that every citizen is a 30-year-old Democrat sphere of 1 meter radius…”
2) Finnocracy. Everyone sits at home and studiously ignores everyone else. From time to time, citizens convene to get drunk and hit each other with axes.
3) American Idol Montana : Congressman for 2010!
As a non-US-American, I’ve got to say that I’d really prefer if the USA didn’t have these delusions of grandeur about “leading the world” all the time.
(Unless you mean things like “be a world leader in $FOO” – broadband penetration, technology, or similar things. That’s obviously fine and a worthy goal to aspire to.)
Also, national pride? Sorry, but that’s exactly what’s causing all these problems in the world today. As long as you divide the world into “us” (your own nation) and “them” (everyone else) and feel proud that you’re one of “us” and not “them”, you’re going to have pretty much no choice but to feel that “they” are inferior in some way. And when everyone does, well…
Open, empirical enquiry and evidenced based policy-making are good, but science (unless rather loosely defined) is too strict a method for real-time decision making. A good scientist withholds judgement until the available evidence stacks up above a threshold of significance. Statesmen can’t do that; they have to make big decisions on very unsatisfactory data. Rather than the strict scientific method, something like Bayesian reasoning is what they should use for turning evidence into action.
That said when there IS time to collect evidence to scientific standards GO SCIENCE! Lots of well designed policy trials with proper controls and such really is what the world needs now.
“inspire national pride, restore positive feelings about America around the globe, embolden democracy, and ultimately, lead the world.”
Fat chance. Nothing frightens me more about a country than its ambition to become self-appointed “leader”. It’s exactly what Japan and Germany were trying to do in WW2.
Even the Soviets knew how utterly unrealistic it is.
SEED’s statement is scientism. It’s crap from start to finish.
America, still inarguably and essentially the world’s beacon – SEED editors
All Americans with this attitude (and of course anyone in other countries with corresponding attitudes) are part of the problem, not part of the solution. One of the things I most value about this forum is the rarity with which I encounter it here, despite the preponderance of American commenters.
If you have an alternative way of governing
Whips and collars work well in my household, but I’m not sure that scales too well.
Absolutely Nick (#116), it sickens me every time I hear such unadulterated bullshit from my fellow citizens. Patriotism (especially when it takes the form of an assertion of moral or other superiority, and especially from the powerful) is a vile and dangerous disease to rival the most reactionary religious thinking. Of course, patriotism of the weak is not great either, just less dangerous.
Slight typo, I should have said “Patriotism (especially when it takes the form of an assertion of moral or other superiority, and especially from the powerful) is a vile and dangerous disease rivaling the most reactionary religious thinking.”
I think that the word science in that statement should be replaced with Scientific Method, as that would be a better description of it, in my opinion.
I think that any situation, looked at critically, can reveal the best possible solution, including things like slavery and whether or not to attack Canada, Nazis or Rwanda. Which in all three cases, especially Canada, we should (you never know what those Canucks are up to… heh).
Critical thinking, empiricism where possible, and the scientific method should probably inform most governmental decisions, IMO.
The Supreme Court is not, however, going to generally use the scientific method as the primary basis for its decisions, although it would be stupid not to use science quite thoroughly in considering ramifications and “the facts.” Much of what legislators and presidents do is not really possible to become the scientific method (“Political Science” is only partly science, at best).
But it’s probably fair to say that our government, while founded on philosophical principles (such as Locke’s) and European values, is a child of the Enlightenment, if not precisely of science (or of strictly scientific methods). Thinking anew, thinking fresh ideas, and paying attention to the data and empirical bases, intellectuals were trying to do in government what was being done in science, even if the two areas are not readily comparable. Science’s capabilities were appreciated, and imported to some degree into thinking about political affairs.
Possibly that is what Seed meant to say, but if so, wow, it didn’t come out well.
And yes about Canada, they’ve had it too good for too long, and you know they’re planning something. Probably something hockey-themed and hopelessly pacific, but I just don’t think we should take any chances. We’ll invade as soon as we have a quorum.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
To put it mildly.
:D!!!!!!!
If you have an alternative way of governing, please do tell us about it in the comments.
“My way or the highway.” :-)
Seriously, vote for me.
With me in power, churches will lose their tax exempt status and abortions will be available in mall kiosks for free, no age requirement and no questions asked.
Science would be heavily funded, but a lot of it would go to develop the orbital habitats/battlestars.
Breeder reactors, baby! And pebble bed and others.
I’ll give help the poor, but they damn well are going to work for it. Planting trees, cleaning up parks, harvesting crops and whatnot.
Any politician using more than three logical fallacies in a single speech will be sent to a work camp.
The dangers of Canada, yes indeed. If you look at the map, you’ll see:
a) How big it is.
b) How it’s already cut off Alaska from the rest of the USA!
c) How it’s in a huddle round the North Pole with Russia, obviously plotting something really nefarious.
Ha! Canada, you’re not fooling anyone with all that “peacekeeping”!
The scientific method as a basis for governance can only go so far, IMO. The problem is that a lot of the problems with which government must deal relate to the social sciences (political science, economics etc.) – which are by their nature inexact sciences, because they deal with human behaviour, which does not always conform to deterministic laws. We base social science models on constructs (the hypothetical “reasonable man”, Homo economicus, and so on), but in reality we cannot possibly hope to predict precisely, even on the basis of past experience, how a vast mass of diverse human beings, with their own desires, needs and psychologies, will react in any given situation.
Another problem is that we humans are not, by our nature, wholly rational. We respond to poetry more than reason. People are more influenced by inspirational rhetoric than by facts and figures. Look at political history. The likes of Friedman and Hayek developed modern capitalist thought, but it wasn’t these great intellectuals who put it into practice; it was Reagan, the “Great Communicator”, with his florid rhetoric of the “shining city upon a hill” and the epic battle between freedom and socialism. Likewise, Obama is winning not because he is right on the issues; he’s right on some and wrong on others, but that’s irrelevant. He is winning because he’s mastered the poetic element of political leadership. He can appeal to people’s “souls” (I use the word metaphorically), not merely to their minds.
If human beings were wholly rational, and did not have the capacity for emotion and aesthetics that we do have, there would be no art, no music and no poetry (and possibly no religion, though that’s a debate that we’ve had enough times already). George W. Bush would have long since faded into obscurity. The GOP nominee this year would be Ron Paul. And the world would be a radically different place. But we must deal with human nature as it is.
And the fact is that none of us is truly rational, however much you might like to think so. Do you listen to music and feel inspired? Do you read novels, or appreciate art or poetry? Personally, I can argue about religion and freedom for hours on this site, listen to rational arguments and reach a rational conclusion, but it doesn’t have a tenth of the deeply-felt impact of listening to a really good recording of “Battle Hymn of the Republic”.
We are not rational beings, and we cannot therefore expect that our leaders will make all decisions according to rational and predictable laws.
Nick Gotts@116: But in the context of science (which is how I read it) the US is the world’s beacon. They spend more than anyone else, they get more of the big prizes and they attract more of the best researchers from around the world. It’s not jingoistic to say so.
In reponse to Mr. Morales (#99), The correllation between life expectancy and quality of health care is tenuous at best. If American deaths due to combat death and gunshot death were at the same rate as they are for Australia then I’d bet that life expectancy would be very similar.In the USA young people die of things that all the medical care in the world isn’t going to stop. If medical care in the USA sucks so badly why do rich people from all over the world come here for it? Could it be that in the USA patients have the autonomy, physicians have the accountability, and there are unfettered entrepreneurial opportunities to create, fill, and expand medical markets and make them the standard of care? The only reason that medical care system in the USA doesn’t eat up 30% or more of our GNP is that 30% or so of our population cannot access it.
Nick Gotts@116: But in the context of science (which is how I read it) the US is the world’s beacon. They spend more than anyone else, they get more of the big prizes and they attract more of the best researchers from around the world. It’s not jingoistic to say so.
We do so because we are way richer than most countries in the world (and this in turn has little to do with any “inherent” moral superiority of Americans). For the same reason we can attract top scientists. That does not however convey moral superiority, and “world’s beacon”, has such a connotation. So I tend to agree with Nick.
Patricia@59:
You know I was kidding, right?
Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method.
Many, perhaps most stakeholders in a democracy aren’t equipped to follow scientific arguments. So are we not to be democratic, unless there is no good scientific reason not to be? Or should we trust that power won’t corrupt scientific leaders, and let them rule unfettered, expecting them to remain constrained by rigor and self-criticism? What to do if the experts disagree? Hell, what do we do if the experts do agree? Politics is much harder than science.
On another point, it always makes me laugh when people say ‘reality has a liberal bias”. Nonsense. It is fascist and merciless to the core, as indifferent to our wails and screams as it is to our laughter. It is people who supply the liberality. Liberal values have to be taught, cultivated, maintained, and applied, against reality and its tendency to spread death, decay, and misery. Still it is every bit as capable of mischief as conservatism, so even our basic assumptions have to be subject to criticism and re-examination.
Clearly science is our best bet for finding stuff out in cases where there is some hope of measurement and prediction. Perhaps governance is like that, but I doubt it. But I don’t trust anyone to rule by any method without checks, many of them extra-scientific.
This thread is unofficially closed. Until someone else posts.
Dave Eaton #130: “Politics is much harder than science.”
Really? It’s harder for people to scheme against each other for advantage using their intuition and hunches than it is for people to obtain an accurate understanding of themselves, their world and how natural reality works? Really?
It’s harder to play ritualized territorial games than it is to acquire knowledge for real survival?
REALLY?
Politics is a fucking LUXURY, man. Science has been doing the real work on the real problem of survival that SUPPORTS such luxuries. (It even informs politicians in their decision-making if they have the balls for it). Just check out, say, Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World” – Chapter 18: “The Wind Makes Dust” for a clue.
The Cheerful Nihilist #131: Sorry. Unofficially.
If human beings were wholly rational… The GOP nominee this year would be Ron Paul. – Walton
Walton, you are insane. Ron Paul is a cre-a-tion-ist. In other words, quite apart from his batshit-crazy economic ideas (which I know you share), he’s about as far from rationality as you can get.
Matt Heath@126,
I’ve reread the endorsement, and the “beacon” comment is made before there’s any mention of science, so I can’t agree with your interpretation. I agree, of course, that American science is indeed a great thing, and something the world absolutely needs to solve the enormous environmental and resource problems we face – a central reason why the struggle for rationality in the USA is so vital.