Indeed it would. Science is about examining the way the physical world works, psychology and sociology study how humans behave in it. Maybe, one day, the two will not be mutually exclusive, but I don't see how you could ever use science to make a moral choice. Morality is a concept, not a measurable physical reality. Encouraging people to think in a rational, critical way from an early age - not just teaching them to memorise facts - would probably be a Bloody Good Idea, but it will only get you so far in deciding what's right and wrong, just or unjust.
Though if I hear scientists described as "elite" one more time I think I'm going to scream. Why are we "elite" whereas the "ordinary" people who spend just as much time and dedication in their jobs are described as "hard working" ? Cue angry blog post in 3, 2, 1....
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096315-a-rational-nation-ruled-by-science-would-be-a-terrible-idea
I think it's probably a terrible idea if you reduce it ad absurdio. But then so are most things.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how well a society might run if as much stuff was judged on evidence as possible, though? I suspect that's what Tyson meant, although as he appears to communicate largely via 140 character tweets it can be a bit tricky to pin that down. Current drug policy, for example, basically just ignores all the evidence and that causes a lot of social problems which don't have to exist. Science may not be able to tell us whether euthanizing a baby with developmental problems is "right" or not but it certainly offers the ability to make a more informed choice. Is there a word for government by philosophers? That might be fun. Nothing would ever get done, but at least the blackboard industry would flourish.
Also Rationalia might be a terrible idea - not to mention a silly word - but the author of that piece doesn't, quite reasonably so, attempt to decide whether it's more or less terrible than the way we do things right now. I suspect it's probably no worse and may even be better. There's likely no perfect solution.
Scientismists (wow, that's clunky) I find almost as annoying as the dogmatically religious. But I kind of understand why, if you come from a strongly religious country, you might decide you fucking love science and make lots of noise and fuss about that. They'll grow out of it, I'm sure.
Rhys Taylor, I know you have a knee jerk hatred for all things Tyson, but all he was advocating for was having policy based on evidence. For example, if you want to leave the EU, you don't go around voting on it based on the belief that you're going to get to kick out all the immigrants because you're probably still going to be part of the EEC.
ReplyDeleteIronically if you do this, you actually start having discussions that really are about values; rather than wishful thinking and smokescreens about what will happen when you thumb your nose at the continent.
Because a theocracy is so much better.
ReplyDeleteI think people call scientists"elite" because they are ignorant of what science really is.
A pretty good summary on what's so wrong with scientism.
ReplyDeleteYou can compare it to other ideologies like for example militarism: they confuse the mean (science, military...) with the end. When you have a hammer...
Also, at this point I wonder why #shutupneil is not a thing.
Mat Brown _Also Rationalia might be a terrible idea - not to mention a silly word - but the author of that piece doesn't, quite reasonably so, attempt to decide whether it's more or less terrible than the way we do things right now_
He sort of does by giving examples of previous attempts in the XXe century, and examples of science that was or would have been used in the XIXe and XXe centuries for this.
He also reminds us that NGT himself is as prone to the same flaws, so it would be the same this time around.
After all, this is the guy who believe in the Medieval Flat Earth myth, that philosophy is useless, and is behind the last revival of the Giordano Bruno farce. At that point, Creationists almost look good in comparison.
So yes, it would be worse than how we do things right now.
The adjective is "scientistic" for what relates to Scientism, so I suppose the name should be "scientisist" - some use "scientist", but that's the kind of confusion we should definitely not give to Scientism proponents.
Rhys Taylor I don't see where the article called scientists "elite". Though in such a regime, scientists would indeed be the elite, by definition. Well, that's a good reason to not want to see scientists be called "elite".
Well, I'm not that anti-Tyson. I don't hate the man, I just wouldn't ever want to buy him a beer.... I haven't read his original article though. But I can easily imagine a world based purely on "rational" thought being being every bit as bad as anything ISIS or the Aztecs ever came up with. I think there are some choices that are fundamentally impossible to make based on pure logic. How can you decide, logically, that a human being is more valuable than a rat ? Or what poetry is better ? Or whether an indigenous tribe should be made aware of modern civilisation ? How about euthanasia ? Of course, this is an absurd absolute, but it's one which is worth pointing out from time to time. People have taken the notion of human vivisection seriously on a few occasions...
ReplyDeletehttp://existentialcomics.com/comic/60
We should without doubt encourage more consideration of critical, evidence-based thinking than we have now, but I think it's worth noting that this will only get us so far.
Elie Thorne Ah, you're right, it doesn't actually say that scientists are an elite at all, it says, "especially as elites became less religious", which is quite different. My mistake !
ReplyDelete"Encouraging people to think in a rational, critical way from an early age - not just teaching them to memorise facts - would probably be a Bloody Good Idea, but it will only get you so far in deciding what's right and wrong, just or unjust."
ReplyDeletehow big is the world for you Rhys Taylor? I understand that belief is commonly liked to religion and not science- it is a dogma pushed for centuries, but still why a world governed in a rational(scientific) way must exclude belief(a core to the moral)?
Because both psychology and sociology can't handle it while trying to cover their roots linking them to religion and so rendering them as pseudo-sciences?
Tim Stoev I don't know what you mean by that. I certainly didn't suggest that science excludes belief or that psychology is a pseudoscience.
ReplyDeletewell you didn't make the claim about the pseudo-science, It is mine and I am proud of it, but you definitely make the claim that pairs science-rational-(not)moral labeling belief as not-rational which is understandable and I explained it in the comment above
ReplyDeleteYou can assign weights to moral choices, like winning a chess game where you assign values to pieces.
ReplyDeleteNope, I didn't make that claim either. :) I've always said that belief and rationality are uncorrelated. The issue here is whether you can doing things with purely rational thought is a good idea or not. I say no, it's a dreadful idea.
ReplyDeleteok you say that there is not and can't be correlation between belief and rationality yes?
ReplyDeleteI think there can be, I just don't think there actually is much of one.
ReplyDeleteso you believe(in the upper statement) but being rational doubt your beliefs?
ReplyDeleteWhat upper statement ? I'm very confused !
ReplyDeleteme either:
ReplyDeleteupper statement := "ok you say that there is not and can't be correlation between belief and rationality yes?"
Well, as I said, I think there could be a correlation between belief and being rational, but there isn't. People could only come to conclusions about things they can't prove (i.e. beliefs) by purely rational thought, but they don't. Yes, I doubt my beliefs, or at least try to.
ReplyDeleteI just struck a extremely poor written article on the mathematics of machine learning and I have a terrible headache... maybe we will continue dissecting the science of belief another time. Thanks for the time.
ReplyDeleteSounds elitist.... JUST KIDDING!
ReplyDeleteYou're a bad, bad man, Charles Filipponi :D
ReplyDeleteNo worries Tim Stoev, all in due time. :)
I quoted you out of context too Rhys Taylor when I reshared, just to rub some salt into it.
ReplyDelete