In article
,
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

Technocracy was one of the political theories that cropped up in the
first half of the 20th century, alongside Fascism, Leninism, etc.

It would have been a complete disaster, the epitome of "I know what's
best for you whether you like it or not" government. Everywhere the
Technocrats gained any sort of authority (they were too elitist to win
elections, but sometimes got appointed), they made a mess of it.

It could be argued that the sorry state of social sciences at the time
was much of why the Technocrats were either a joke or a disaster, but
there's also the fact that people who go into science and people who
go into government have very different interests and generally don't
develop the skill set that goes with the other field.

Scientists aren't all as rational as one might like, particularly
outside their own specialties -- ask the Amazing Randi, and he'll tell
you that scientists are the easiest people in the world to fool with
simple tricks. They expect things to be rational, and they expect
people to be honest, and that makes them suckers for a slick liar.
They've never learned not to be fooled.

Understanding how people think and react is far more important in
government than any understanding of the scientific method.

If you want to see how it works in a more modern setting, take a look at
China. As pointed out by James Nicoll on his blog (but I can't find a
reference right now), the vast majority of the central ruling committee
of China has PhDs in various hard sciences.

As for whether that means it's good or bad, I think that would depend on
individual interpretation.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon