Why Shouldn't Science And State Become One?

I have a thought that’s been on my mind lately and I would like some educated opinions to explain in good reason why governments aren’t scientific institutions as a form of governance.

This to me is incredibly obvious and should be to anyone who is familiar with the applications of what the scientific method has achieved in creating aspirations and accomplishments for the betterment of humanity.

In the scientific community there is no one official expert leading it, nor is there one with a rule of power, there is no electorate and there is no opinions that by themselves hold integrity.

I would like to know why with such a mess world wide in the typical two party system that has been allowed to venture into a continued disgrace, especially in their inability to move forward meaningfully in what scientific evidence would direct them to.

Because it's not as if the current system effectively works, so why haven't the intelligent people of the world applied the slightest form of reason to create a system where science and state are one and the same?

a reply to: andre18

Because stupid people will continue to elect stupid people.

... and there are way more stupid people than smart ones.

a reply to: andre18

You mean like our University System?

Our great centers of higher learning?

Let's give our intellectual elite ones tenure in congress, they would love that.

LOL!

a reply to: andre18

Sorry, but awful idea!

Get rid of special interests and lobbyists first, then we'll come back to scientific method and application.

If you want to do that ... first ... watch a movie.

Soylent Green is made of People!

That is what eventually happens when you put those two together.

Science is already a whore, willing to tailor results to match the desire of those paying the big bills.

P

a reply to: andre18

This is why not:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

Can you guess who said this, and once you do, I wonder why no one ever talks about this second warning he gave? Everyone knows about the first warning, but this one came right afterward and no one knows about it. I wonder why ...

Here you are talking about implementing it wholesale.

source

a reply to: andre18

People have been trying that for a long time now.

First it was called communism.

Then it was called socialism...

Then there were a couple of times where it was called something else and about 150 million people died...

And now it is called Progressivism.

a reply to: Lumenari

They're working on Transhumanism. Once we're all plugged into the system and rendered less then human, they might finally achieve it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

They're working on Transhumanism. Once we're all plugged into the system and rendered less then human, they might finally achieve it.

And it worked so well in Hitler's Germany...

a reply to: andre18

Imagine you have 5 young kids, all under 8 years old.

Imagine trying to convince them to clean up the house and yard using logic and reason. Explain to them about germs, rats, roaches, etc.: the benefits of having a clean house and a well kept yard.

Now take those same 5 kids and imagine trying to get them to do what you want using lies, bribery, threats, trickery, rewards, etc.

Which method do you think would be more effective? Especially if you're trying to convince them to do something that may not be in their personal best interests?

How do you think governments see people?

You are speaking about Technocracy, not quite Communism or Socialism though elements of each might be used. They've been around for 80 years preaching to those who will listen.

We're scientists and engineers, let us design the human environment for you!
www.technocracyinc.org...

Once you dig in you'll find much of their platform has become UN Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Technocrats brought us Common Core. See how well it is working?

Science is steered by funding, the evidence can be interpretted many ways from research. Parameters of the research govern how it is supposed to be used but most times people ignore the parameters.

Science is all about following the money trail, the person who pays the bills gets the research they want.

To combine science and state is like combining religion and state. Not a good idea.

* Science doesn't have a moral conscience.

* Science also likes to disect and experiment on what it studies.

Those two reasons alone are reason enough to keep science locked up in a dark cupboard in the attic, hopefully forever.

Like our patent system?

Wait, is the word patent copyrighted yet ?

Sh!t, don't sue me

a reply to: andre18

Although likely more logical in theory, the foundations of science being premised around continuously questioning further is a big snag in the common business models of governments. Governments prefer to offer guidelines of compliance for the masses, and already holds the superior influence among the two groups when compared against each other... governments regulate science, so the chances that any government would like to experiment with handing over influential authority to science as a whole is nothing but a dream world.

a reply to: andre18

Science is done by academia and private industry, sometimes in govt labs. These are the only people able to pay for it.

If you believe there are no politics in academia, you are blind. Business is driven by the profit motive. Both of these already have a large influence over the govt.

Your entire proposal is too naive to seriously consider.

a reply to: andre18

I have a thought that’s been on my mind lately and I would like some educated opinions to explain in good reason why governments aren’t scientific institutions as a form of governance.

Interesting concept. How would it lessen the burden on the citizens of that government? What does science say about freedoms and laws? Would it be socialistic science, capitalistic science, or a dictorial science?

Science is a tool, much like any knowledge, but it hasn't been able to solve the issue of corruptness and the human construct. Thus in my opion, corruption would also be in that government.

What would a scientific government say one the matter of religion? Would that freedom be restricted?

This to me is incredibly obvious and should be to anyone who is familiar with the applications of what the scientific method has achieved in creating aspirations and accomplishments for the betterment of humanity.

Yes it has done many things for the betterment of humanity. It has also given us the ability to destroy everything humanity has built. Oppenheimer was a great scientist, no doubt, but his legacy is the destroyer of worlds.

We still live in an age of war. How would a scientific government, with a knowledge for the sake of knowledge mentality as a government exist in a world ran by corruption?

In the scientific community there is no one official expert leading it, nor is there one with a rule of power, there is no electorate and there is no opinions that by themselves hold integrity.

You are asserting integrity is something only a scientist deserves. Look at the leaders of the scientific community now.
There will always be a need for leaders. Also all scientists do not agree on everything. Would there be scientific courts to scientifically solve the matter?

In the scientific community there is no one official expert leading it, nor is there one with a rule of power, there is no electorate and there is no opinions that by themselves hold integrity.

What would be the currency of that government? How would the scientists feed themselves? Would there be diet restrictions to ensure the medical costs would stay to a minimum?

I would like to know why with such a mess world wide in the typical two party system that has been allowed to venture into a continued disgrace, especially in their inability to move forward meaningfully in what scientific evidence would direct them to.

Because everyone is suseptible to corruption. Even scientists.

Because it's not as if the current system effectively works, so why haven't the intelligent people of the world applied the slightest form of reason to create a system where science and state are one and the same?

Becuase that would make it a dictatorial type government. Is that what you really want?

a reply to: andre18

In the scientific community there is no one official expert leading it, nor is there one with a rule of power, there is no electorate and there is no opinions that by themselves hold integrity.

In my experience - and I dare say I am not alone in this - basically none of the above holds true in academia, which for all intents and purposes is the scientific community.

In my opinion you are confusing the reality of scientific community with the principles of scientific method.

a reply to: andre18

Why shouldn't a fly and a cat become one? Because a fly is a fly and a cat is a cat.