|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Where Science Went Wrong (hilarious web site)
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Most hilarious ETX-90 photo ever? | mx | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | June 9th 08 04:00 PM |
Hanson! -- read this, it is hilarious. | Androcles[_7_] | Astronomy Misc | 6 | January 20th 08 12:11 AM |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 11th 07 05:37 PM |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | July 11th 07 04:48 PM |
General Science Web Site | Vtrade | Policy | 1 | February 16th 04 07:11 PM |