On May 6, 6:41*pm, trag wrote:
On May 6, 9:31 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I do think a case can be made that scientists are more fit to rule than
non-scientists (as a very broad generalization only, of course). That's
because scientists have a rational way of thinking that is clearly
beneficial. The question, of course, comes down to whether they lack
some other equally important skill, such as diplomacy (again, broadly
generalizing). My own view is that rational, clear thinking probably
outweighs other factors, but who's to know for sure?

My experience is that while (some) scientists may have a rational way
of thinking within their specialty, most of them do not apply that
skill outside their specialty. * At the very least, this is true of
most of the engineers I've worked with.

I knew a mathematician who believed in astrology and filled lottery
tickets, always with the numbers 1-2-3-4-5...n, as they were exactly
as probable as any other combination. Which is true, but
a. If these number ever came out in a draw, accusations of cheating
would disqualify the results
and
b. If you're so good in calculating probabilities what are you doing
buying lotery ticklets in the first place?

I wish I knew him better, I never really figured out if the astrology
thing was true belief or just an affectation.