Scientists Should Rule The World- Not Politicians

reply to post by TrueAmerican


No, scientists are not a good choice. Science is too important to be left to scientists. In their philosophically and mystically ignorant hands, science would just become another -ism. More-so, that is.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

Mystic philosophers like me should rule the world. :p

Why scientists?
Why not plumbers or builders or farmers?
Scientist make all the nasty things of the world, for money I might add. They are as corrupt as the politicians, most of their "findings" prove to be wrong somewhere down the line,
I would much prefer people of caring hearts, people who actually work for a community like I mentioned before, farmers,builders, cleaners....people who actually do things for the benefit of others and not just for the money. Just to add when I say farmers I mean men with a smallholding that produces for a very small amount of people. Not big corporations.

Scientists, like politicians, can be bought and paid for.

Remember the Global Warming Scientists, who distorted, manipulated, and deleted data in order to prove Global Warming existed, but ultimately proved it a hoax?

If scientists take the place of politicians then philosophers should take the place of tptb, secret societies, secret government.

As long as that science isn't based on faith









But rather, based on facts, actual science.
Only in a pipe dream....

reply to post by BlubberyConspiracy


I think you will find most of science is based on faith.
Eg, Evolution, that is just another faith as creationism is. Neither have been 100% proven both are theories.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Would scientists be more immune to the corrupting nature of power than politicians, would they be open to the same corruption?

Everyone is open to the same levels of corruption, but the difference between politicians and scientists is that politicians believe that consensus can make a thing automatically correct, whereas scientists require a bit more scrutiny.

Thus, policies would be more based on REALITY, than conjecture and whether or not their financiers benefit.

reply to post by nerbot

A lot of scientists are not that different from politicians.

Huge funding to chase personal agendas, secrecy, manipulation, lies and they don't always have the public interest at heart.

You are not describing Scientists at ALL.... you are describing politicians, and yet CALLING them scientists.

Bad move imo.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

Science is being de-bunked as much as any other subject.

You don't know much about science, do ya?

Science is not being "Debunked"... that is a dumb statement.

Science is never Excepted UNTIL it has born the brunt of Excruciating peer review process... and any NEW scientific theory does not make us throw the old ones out the window, because the NEW theory must *BY DEFINITION* explain everything that the old theory explains, and MORE.

Then there are lots of arguments about these theories, arguments usually turn to disputes and in turn disputes can turn to warfare.

Name the last time a Dispute about a scientific theory caused open warfare.

I [snip] *DARE YOU*

reply to post by Hoping4Wisdom

This post seems to have a certain naivety to it. You think that science is pure? That scientist are benevolent beings of fluffy good stuff? Some of the worst people in the history of mankind have been members of the scientific community. The scientific method in a pure unadulterated form is very rarely ever truly applied to science because they still have MOTIVES.

Are you insane or something?

Science is a PROCESS to finding out what is RIGHT... it is not a process to get consensus or Votes.

And your claim of "Some of the worst people in the history of mankind have been members of the scientific community." is quite absurd... I would like you to validate your claim with evidence, instead of me just letting that stand on your own presumption.

State when that happened.

DO IT!

reply to post by grizzle2

You mean like the scientists who have been planning to depopulate the world for a very long time? Societies similar to those portrayed in the movies Soylent Green, THX-1138, Logan's Run, Brave New World?

Let me get this straight.

You are claiming that the basis for hating scientists, is... Movies?

Really?

And apparently you didn't watch, nor read any of the movies or books that you are citing as examples.

It's actually quite sad.

I'd rather have no science and be a dirt farmer than have the law of the land be that things like emotion, compassion and family were undesirable, unsustainable sentimentality.

So, you are saying that Scientists are unfeeling machines?

Really, you believe this?

Wow, the unadulterated stupidity in your post pretty much proves that WITHOUT SCIENCE, you would *BE* a dirt farmer.....



reply to post by chr0naut

Some politicians are scientists now.

Really?

Name One.

Please... Go ahead.

reply to post by Aliensun

You talkin' 'bout the same folks that built the atomic bomb, right?

Yes, that's right, the folks who built the atomic Bomb were scientists...

Same as the folks who create all of the fertilizer that makes sure that you can eat food.

Same as the folks who created this Giant Decentralized Computer Network.

All of the important things ever created were built by Scientists.

In the exact same way that politicians DON'T create all of these awesome things.

Oh, and just for the record, equating ALL scientists to the hand-full that had a hand in creating the atomic bomb, is just like equating ALL ATS posters to that one guy who shot those people.

It makes you look stupid.

reply to post by VariableConstant

But there was an episode of The Simpsons where they put the scientists in control, and it didn't work out as well as they thought it would.

Well, I think that statement pretty much precludes you from ruling anything, EVER.

For god sakes, taking your cues on reality from the simpsons...

Your post is bad, and you should feel bad.



reply to post by squizzy

Scientist make all the nasty things of the world

No, Scientists make ALL OF THE *THINGS* in the world.

Good and Bad... made by science.

Try to keep up, eh?

most of their "findings" prove to be wrong somewhere down the line

You gonna bark all day, little squirrel?

Or are you going to Bite?

I would like you to back up your claim with facts... if you would be so kind.

I would much prefer people of caring hearts

Because scientists are cold, unfeeling, robots, eh?

Is that really what you think?

That Scientists are somehow inhuman monsters?

I mean... wow.

I think you will find most of science is based on faith.
Eg, Evolution, that is just another faith as creationism is. Neither have been 100% proven both are theories.

You are so mistaken that I think every god that ever existed is laughing at you.

You cannot PROVE a theory, because a theory is a field of study.

Evolution is not based on Faith, it is based on observation of the natural world, testable evidence, and scientific framework that predicts what we should see (Which has been vindicated)

Before you respond, Squirrel, Watch this video, It might enlighten you as to WHY you are not a scientist.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I think you will find that nowhere did I say I WAS a scientist.
I still stand by what I say however that scientist put forward theories most of the time not facts. Something only becomes a fact when enough people believe it. Just think about that last statement and apply it to your reality. You will also notice that your reality is not my reality. That is for another time as I refuse to argue I debate on logic not emotion.

reply to post by squizzy

I still stand by what I say however that scientist put forward theories most of the time not facts.

You didn't even read what I posted, and you didn't watch the videos.

I know this, because you still don't know what a theory *IS* and are just arguing against a straw-man fallacy.

Something only becomes a fact when enough people believe it.

This is the biggest load of horse[snip] that I have ever seen.

Explain why the earth is not a Disc, with a crystal dome holding the stars over it, because that is what most people used to believe.

You will also notice that your reality is not my reality.

Reality is Reality.

There is no "Your Reality" or "My Reality".... there is only the one reality, and no amount of wishing on your part will EVER change that fact.

That is for another time as I refuse to argue I debate on logic not emotion.

Considering that you haven't used logic ONCE in your posts, or rebuttals, I find your statement transparently false.

When scientific theories, ideas and models drug tests and climate studies are based on standards as low as 95% confidence and treated as fact, they snowball onto each other, building up more and more inaccuracies and getting further and further from the truth... Much of science literally requires faith today and cannot be verified as fact with certainty.

Just say no to ruling the world:

Unless you are the Ruler...

reply to post by BlubberyConspiracy

Much of science literally requires faith today and cannot be verified as fact with certainty.

This is singlehandedly the dumbest statement that I have ever come across in all of my years.

Honestly, You didn't really expect that statement to remain unchallenged, did you?





Science is not about Faith, and even saying such an ignorant thing absolutely *REQUIRES* that you have absolutely NO IDEA what science actually IS.

So, Yeah... stop being ignorant.

Will be better when humanity finally outgrows the primitive need of leaders and nations... I dont and wont follow any leaders. Have neither a need nor use for them.

Scientists cave easily to peer pressure and political correctness. Consider what the social sciences have become. Lobby groups are very powerful in higher education.

If important policy decisions where based on facts that where out in the open for public debate and review instead of based on fear, money and opinion held in secret then this world would be a much better place. I would rather listen to someone who has been doing their homework rather than someone just trying to push their beliefs.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I may be dumb in your eyes and you are entitled to your opinion.

With regards to science being de-bunked you only have to look at the whole reasoning from some scientists that CO2 emissions are responsible for creating global warming. However, I feel that this is a western government agenda being backed up by scientists (in order to secure funding) to use as an excuse to raise revenue. Sure there is evidence to suggest climate change is occuring, but it is just that. There are some quarters in the science world that suggest the world is actually cooling down. Now which side should we believe?

I didn't actually state that science has been responsible for any war, what I said was that disputes lead to warfare and regardless of who would be running countries, disputes would occur. My main point being here that it is in our nature to be tribal and protective over what we deem to be ours. Likewise it is in our nature to covet things that other states may have whether it is land, natural resources etc.

Now the only way I could see what the OP is saying will work, would be for some kind of One World Government, being run by scientists. But hey, surely if there was a One World Government, would it matter who was actually running things?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
My best friend growing up is now a published mathematician.math professor (basically a math scientist).

He's my friend and a good person, but I definitely would not want him helping to lead the world. He's a smart person, but he's not necessarily a good decision-maker, nor a good leader of men.

Perhaps that's because he would mostly expect you to lead yourself, not others.

Every organization or society needs leaders. To have leaders and followers is human nature. We don't follow the politicians' lead because they tell us to; humans follow leaders because it is their nature to do so. It has probably been that way since the beginnings of Man. I'm sure that early hunter-gatherers had leaders who organized the efforts of everyone else.

I'm just saying that there are many scientists who don't have what it takes to lead. Just like their are some plumbers who can lead and some who can't, their are some accountants who can lead and some who can't, and their are some artists who can lead and some who can't. I just don't see how scientist could necessarily lead the world just because they are scientists, as much as I wouldn't claim that an artist could lead the world, just because they are artists.

Politicians come from every walk of life -- but they are the leaders from those walks of life. Often times, the politician started out doing something else, then moved into politics. Jimmy Carter was an engineer and a farmer; Ronald Reagan was an actor; John McCain and John Kerry were soldiers; my local U.S. congressman was a small-business ower. There is not one occupation (like "scientist") that you can say could all make good leaders. Every occupation has people who are leaders and people who are followers. Science is not an exception.

Science is vocation not a type of person. Scientists are no different from anybody else.

If scientists ruled the world Tony Blair would have studied science to gain power. Where there is power to be had over others the corrupt will always seek it.

It really would not help.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
There is not one occupation (like "scientist") that you can say could all make good leaders. Every occupation has people who are leaders and people who are followers. Science is not an exception.

Obviously. But I am saying we'd have a lot better luck choosing them from a scientific pool rather than from a political pool. Political Science for real.

Scientists are humans just like you, me, the congress-critters on the hill and everyone else; they are prone to the same things that create problems in politics so I don't see how somehow they would instantly make better rulers than those in charge currently, if anything I think it would lead to an even further disconnect between the people and their rulers. Given enough time those scientific minds in power would likely come to look down upon the lesser educated masses due to the difference in intelligence and then we would be right back where we started off at with people resenting their rules because the rulers thought they were better than the people they are supposed to watch out for.