Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)

On May 6, 10:33*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On May 6, 8:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Well, it isn't clear if the world is or is not better off for Stalin
having the bomb. We can't do an experiment and see. The question is
inherently non-scientific, so there is no reason to think that
scientists should make a better (or worse) decision when a question like
it arises.

One would have to have a rather severe lack of common sense not to
think that keeping atomic bombs out of the hands of people like
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Idi Amin, and so on, would not
be the most reasonable course.

And, statistically, scientists do actually seem less likely than most
people to, say, get drunk enough to think that climbing into the
gorilla cage at the local zoo would be a fine lark. Thus, one would
have entertained hopes that they would have done better at this Stalin
thing too.

Or, to put it another way, at least in hindsight (and perhaps the
distinction between hindsight and foresight in this case _does_ depend
on nonscientific factors, like the assumptions of one's social class,
who one regards as a credible source about world events and so on -
the conditions of the Great Depression being conducive to confusion in
these areas), handing the secret of the atomic bomb to Stalin's
minions...

seems to me like the sort of action which would qualify you for the
sort of award that sounds like it might be a prestigious award handed
out for an achievement in evolutionary biology...

but isn't.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

John Savard

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).


WoW.....

Thats very totalitarian of you ! Thankfully that hasn't and will not
happen ! (because you would need strong people to enforce your "rule"
and then they would just get rid of your kind after power was
established because scientists are not strong enough or good enough
shooters...)

Are you soo sure that you never, or scientists never make a mistake ?

What about the people ? Don't they/we have a say ?



--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

http://www.novac.com

On May 6, 11:28*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

You think I'm proposing some sort of coup d'squint?

He might be forgiven that false assumption on the grounds that this
sort of thing was kind of the topic of the thread.

John Savard

On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:38:40 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Thu, 06 May 2010 11:39:46 -0400, 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.

I'm not talking about technocracy, I'm talking about how effective
people with scientific training are as leaders. Very different things.

Um. The original premise of small-T technocracy was "people with
scientific training as leaders."

Herbert Hoover was the poster child for this particular movement.

Capital-T Technocracy is a much sillier thing.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html

In article , Lawrence Watt-Evans writes:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:38:40 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 11:39:46 -0400, 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.

I'm not talking about technocracy, I'm talking about how effective
people with scientific training are as leaders. Very different things.

Um. The original premise of small-T technocracy was "people with
scientific training as leaders."

Herbert Hoover was the poster child for this particular movement.

Yabbut, he was such a great president that they named cities after him!

There were "Hoovervilles" all over the country. How popular can you get?

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
Twenty-four hours in a day; twenty-four beers in a case. Coincidence?

The mere fact that scientists work/ have worked on nuclear, chemical,
psychological and biological weapons is adequate proof that they have
absolutely no place in a leadership role. Nobody put them in a torture
chamber to bring horrors which could, potentially, bring an end to
humanity. Or even the entire world as we know it. All they needed were
the funds, the facilities and blind patriotism. Such psychopathic
behaviour has few public sanctions. As do true, democratic elections
for leadership. Science may be rational but it displays few morals to
balance its study or exploitation.

A scientist is more likely to press a button to see if the world
actually ends as predicted than some deranged, religious psychopath.
Neither is capable of leadership for the long term benefit of the
majority. Most present forms of democracy are critically flawed but at
least the majority of candidates are not cold, calculating scientists
driven by an overdeveloped, morbid curiosity. Their defence may be
that science is innocent. But, even an unqualified fool can recognise
the dangers of exploitation of anything and everything science can
come up with.

History records that the greatest living minds of their time worked
on, or were responsible for, fiendish weapons. Politicians may be weak
and corrupt and afraid to go against the tide but at least they can be
relied on to behave foolishly enough to be removed at the next
election. The Nazis were much closer to science than any other recent,
leadership horrors. Much of what they did is still being exploited by
"peaceful nations". Many of those who carried out work leading to
inhuman atrocities were "snapped up" after the war so valuable was
their "work". Where others were expected to "fall on their swords",
rather than work for the evil Nazi war effort, scientists who caused
hundreds of thousands of agonising deaths were spared such moral
dilemmas and embraced for their valuable skills and knowledge.

Scientists hold no special place in society which places them above
the religious despot. Both are equally dangerous given enough power. I
do not place myself on a higher level either. It would be a bloodbath
if I was ever offered power. But at least it would be for the greater
good! ;-)

On May 6, 11:55*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
The mere fact that scientists work/ have worked on nuclear, chemical,
psychological and biological weapons is adequate proof that they have
absolutely no place in a leadership role.

In that case, the politicians who asked them to do so have no such
place either. Who is left?

John Savard

In article ,
Michael Grosberg wrote:
Strangely, this is the second "Less Wrong" article I ran into in the
last hour. The first was a piece of supposed Harry Potter fan fiction
(I think it's just using the HP-verse to explore some argument in
narrative form) I ran into in the comment section in Charles Stross'
blog.

No, your parenthesis is quite wrong. Yudkowsky is doing nothing less
than rewriting _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_ from top
to bottom, changing things so that they're more pleasing to him.
("In what weird alternative universe would that girl not be Sorted
into Ravenclaw? If Hermione Granger didn't go to Ravenclaw then there
was no good reason for Ravenclaw House to exist.")

This means having a hero who's a rationalist. Having Harry Potter be
an 11-year-old who can plausibly be a rationalist creates other effects,
which in turn ripples through the whole plot, changing everything.

So while it is unabashedly propaganda for rational thought, it is
definitely fan *fiction*, not just exploring arguments. And
well-written, entertaining fiction at that. (It wouldn't have gone as
viral as it has, if it weren't.) Anyone who enjoys LWE's books
because they feature smart characters should check it out.

While on the subject, Yudkowsky wrote a brilliant story called "Three
World Collide" that explores moral relativism and rationality, through
a first encounter scenario in a far-future space opera setting. Very
thought provoking, and also very funny:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/

I'll have to have a look at that.

--
David Goldfarb | "LUM-ber. *heh!* *heh!*"
|
| -- Scott McCloud, "Some Words Albert Likes"

Michael Stemper wrote:
In article , Lawrence Watt-Evans writes:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:38:40 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 11:39:46 -0400, 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.
I'm not talking about technocracy, I'm talking about how effective
people with scientific training are as leaders. Very different things.
Um. The original premise of small-T technocracy was "people with
scientific training as leaders."

Herbert Hoover was the poster child for this particular movement.

Yabbut, he was such a great president that they named cities after him!

There were "Hoovervilles" all over the country. How popular can you get?


Dam' Hoover.

--

Rob Bannister

On Thu, 6 May 2010 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT), trag
wrote in

in sci.astro.amateur,rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

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.

Engineer != scientist.

Brian