Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)

I stumbled upon this essay on the web, and it was too good not to
sha

http://lesswrong.com/lw/p0/to_spread...eep_it_secret/

John Savard

On May 5, 6:50*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
I stumbled upon this essay on the web, and it was too good not to
sha

http://lesswrong.com/lw/p0/to_spread...eep_it_secret/

Yes it is hilarious. Also completely wrong-headed -- for reasons
people already explained in the comment section.

On May 6, 1:50*am, Quadibloc wrote:
I stumbled upon this essay on the web, and it was too good not to
sha

http://lesswrong.com/lw/p0/to_spread...eep_it_secret/

John Savard

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. Coincidence? Or did you follow the same path, then found this
article while browsing the Less wrong website?

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/

On May 6, 7:35*am, Ilya2 wrote:

Yes it is hilarious. Also completely wrong-headed -- for reasons
people already explained in the comment section.

I thought the article itself, near the end, gave the reasons why, in
the real world, such a thing would be wrong-headed.

Basically, if science were kept mysterious and secret... people
wouldn't know what kind of skills were needed to master it. So the
scientific priesthood would have the most difficult time getting new
recruits.

Of course, also, this sort of thing is anti-democratic. If a
scientific priesthood could protect us from being blown up in a
nuclear war started by politicians, it would be a good thing. But
there were _scientists_ among those who had the silly idea that the
world would benefit from Stalin having the atomic bomb too instead of
just the United States. Which pretty much rubbishes the theory that
scientists are more fit to rule than even people like Ronald Reagan
and George W. Bush... when they, unlike the scientists, are at least
kept on a leash by the electorate.

John Savard

On Thu, 06 May 2010 08:31:53 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:01:15 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Of course, also, this sort of thing is anti-democratic. If a
scientific priesthood could protect us from being blown up in a
nuclear war started by politicians, it would be a good thing. But
there were _scientists_ among those who had the silly idea that the
world would benefit from Stalin having the atomic bomb too instead of
just the United States. Which pretty much rubbishes the theory that
scientists are more fit to rule than even people like Ronald Reagan
and George W. Bush... when they, unlike the scientists, are at least
kept on a leash by the electorate.

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.

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?

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.





--
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

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.

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

On May 6, 9:47*am, Mike Ash wrote:

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.

The form of government in China, I would think, is clearly bad, but
I'm not sure the number of PhDs on the Central Committee has anything
to do with it.

John Savard

On May 6, 9:39*am, 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.

Or alongside Social Credit, which would be a more apt comparison. But
Technocracy (tm) is not really the same thing as small-t technocracy.
Not everyone who thinks that scientists ought to run things also
believes that citizens should be issued production requisitioning
cards with a diagonal stripe across them, one way for men, the
opposite for women, so that productive men can't buy fine women's
clothing with which to bribe women.

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.

And if the theory that being able to concentrate hard enough to do
mathematics correlates well with borderline Aspergers has any merit to
it...

John Savard

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.

John Savard