I know some of you think this is a great idea, but it isn't. It really, really isn't.
It's a seductive idea, isn't it ? Get a load of experts who are more interested in facts than ideology into politics - sounds great ! And in the short term, it would be. For a few glorious years we might get evidenced-based policies instead of those which are most appealing.
After that, things will turn sour. And it will end in nothing less than a catastrophe. I'm tempted to use the word, "apocalyptic".
Politics, in the current system, is inherently tribal by nature. Politicians are not always intrinsically motivated or externally incentivised to act in the wider interests or by what the evidence says, and consequently they do not. They put their own interests ahead of other concerns. And they are rightly untrustworthy. EDIT : Winning votes requires appealing to audiences with very different interests, and consequently evidenced-based policy is sometimes a "courageous" move in Yes Minister speak. This is a fault both of the political and education systems : it is not enough to simply change the politicians !
Put scientists in this situation, and nothing will change. By the voters who already (correctly) perceive scientists as politically independent and trustworthy, this will, for a while, be cause for celebration. But those people are largely politically irrelevant, because generally those are the ones casting sensible votes anyway. Not always, because people are complex and irrational enough that trusting science doesn't automatically bestow listening to their advice, but generally.
But it's the other group you really have to consider : those who think scientists are motivated only by their own self-interests and political concerns just like any other group, who don't understand how scientific inquiry works. It is those people who we need to reach out to the most. And it is precisely those people for whom this approach would sound the death knell to any hope of persuading them to listen to evidence, because to them it will confirm all their fears and delusions about scientists as a political group.
Worse will follow, because the scientists won't be scientists any more. They will be politicians, with all the inherently untrustworthy natures that implies. Scientific training will not be a defence against that, because scientists are people too. The politically independent nature of evidence and the determination of facts will cease to be. The boundaries between reliable sources of facts and politically-motivated opinions will not only be perceived to disappear, they will actually disappear. "Post-truth" and "alternative facts" will seem like a distant memory of happier, more rational days.
It's often said that science is true regardless of whether you believe it or not. And it is : that's the problem. When people don't believe it and act against the facts, disaster follows. Scientists are not always the best people to persuade skeptics of what they're doing, and making them into politicians absolutely, positively will not help with that. Quite the opposite.
It is absolutely imperative that scientific findings be as politically independent as possible. Remove the boundaries between science and politics - without a full-on political revolution and an entirely new political system - and we're doomed.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2016/09/would-i-lie-to-you.html
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/when-worlds-collide-science-in-society.html
http://inhabitat.com/trump-inspires-400-scientists-to-run-for-office/
It's an excellent idea.
ReplyDeletehttps://plus.google.com/+SakariMaaranen/posts/ZBFXXvhb2pJ
That, and scientists are just as human as everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThat's why science has the rules it does.
And especially this:
ReplyDeletehttps://plus.google.com/+SakariMaaranen/posts/igkAPwxm1J1
Daniel Taylor and who says you had to be inhuman to do politics? Science is not some special thing that lives in ivory towers. It's just reliable information. That's all. Science is normal. Not special. We need normal people in politics. Scientists are normal people who think normal thoughts. Others - not so normal...
ReplyDeleteLol, so the OP is saying the act of becoming a politician makes a person "inherently untrustworthy"?
ReplyDeleteDouglas Creamer To an extent yes I am - because becoming part of a group that is inherently compelled to act against the wider interests in order to win votes is by nature untrustworthy. Even for the politicians I like best I always examine what they're saying with that in mind.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just don't see the logic in your statement that they are "inherently compelled to act against the wider interests in order to win votes".
ReplyDeleteDouglas Creamer Because what the evidence says and what wins votes are not always the same thing. If you need examples of this, I'm afraid you have bigger problems.
ReplyDeleteRhys is correct about the tendency of power to corrupt.
ReplyDeleteHe's wrong about that being inevitable.
It does require high #integrity. That's also hard. Scientists are better trained for that challenge than most of us.
Plato: Republic Book V: "Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, --nor the human race, as I believe, --and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day."
ReplyDeleteTo say that politics is tribal is self-evident. When mankind was sorted out by tribes, governed by chiefs, governments are as varied as the tribes. The Hausa, among whom I grew up, called their chiefs shugaba, which is also the word for a head cook. The titular form is Sarki. But the Hausa delegate endlessly: the Hausa are quarrelsome and most of the chief's time is spent adjudicating disputes, often between his subordinates. The Sarki has a semi-permanent jury of expert advisors, who assist him with sorting out precedent and all manner of smaller things. These are the mashawarci and almost nothing is done without them.
It doesn't matter what the governed think about scientists, Rhys, not if the sarki chief has competent mashawarci advisors. For politics is the exercise of power, someone has to do it, for mankind must be governed.
Scientists are no different than anyone else: academia is little more than a bunch of savages in gowns and mortarboards. The modern university is an exceptionally badly run tribe: look at them, all these little department heads and administrations. If ever there was what Plato described as those of commoner natures who pursue either political greatness to the exclusion of wisdom, take a look at who makes the dosh in university. It's the pursuers of political greatness, certainly not the scientists.
Perhaps it's time for scientists to observe their height advantage: the view from the Ivory Tower is considerably better than they suppose. Leadership is just another skill set, it can be taught. This is not to say every scientist will make a competent Sarki leader but they would thrive as the mashawarci advisors, upon whom the Sarki chief relies.
It doesn't matter what the governed think about scientists, Rhys, not if the sarki chief has competent mashawarci advisors.
ReplyDeleteOh, but it does if they can vote.
Rhys Taylor The governed are easily frightened. Here's the problem with scientists and it's their own damned fault: it's the Fox and the Hedgehog problem.
ReplyDeletehttp://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9981.pdf
Look at how General Groves sorted out the Manhattan Project. Who was the lead scientist? Robert Oppenheimer, because he had the ability to explain things. Consider Vannevar Bush, who was both a competent scientist and a superb administrator, who had the good sense to delegate to qualified people and not meddle in what they needed to do.
When scientists learn to explain themselves to those who matter, they'll make competent leaders. As for cowing and persuading the governed, really, I do wish rhetoric were still taught in schools. Simple people are so easily persuaded because they're easily understood. Tell them what they need to hear. Don't lie to them, don't make things more complex than they are and for godsakes don't condescend to them.
We will have to agree to disagree. My above arguments (in post and links) all still stand. You cannot simply inject scientists into the current political maelstrom and expect things to get better or even less partisan. Scientists are not especially brilliant at communicating their own research, let alone persuading people to act on it. Politicians, on the other hand, have been brilliantly successful at spinning climatology into some sort of bizarre lefty conspiracy theory. And science advocates have exacerbated the situation crisis a thousandfold, because they believe that being partisan and shouting "anti science !" at anyone who disagrees with them is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteNo, if you want to have scientists in politics, it is absolutely essential that the partisan nature of politics be broken. That simply cannot happen in the current system. I wish I was wrong and that having more sensible voices in politics would be a magic bullet to make the world a better place, but people don't work like that.
Rhys Taylor I say scientists are no different than any other professional sorts of people. Some can communicate effectively. Those might be trainable to become leaders. The others won't.
ReplyDeleteLeadership is no big deal, it's easily taught, some people get it, others never will. It's like any other subject and scientists can manage it as well as anyone.
But whatever leadership isn't, it isn't based on facts or axioms or theorems. It's based on understanding human nature. The climate change debate: classic case in point, you've laid out the case pretty well. Now ask yourself, how did the politicians come to oppose AGW? That's simple: the people who footed their campaign expenses have vested interests in opposing regulation. Part of human nature is understanding that everyone has his price, that politicians by their very nature are prostitutes, that in their craving for power over others, they become the thralls of those who pay their bills.
Facts don't matter in politics. They never mattered. People are fearful and stupid and craven and they foster every sort of self-serving delusions in their empty heads. Science has attempted to come to terms with the world as it is, searching for facts - yes, you're right, injecting scientists into this debate is pointless, because humanity is a nasty, vicious little hominid whose tools for destruction have evolved faster than he has.
Dan Weese you are conflating corruption with politics.
ReplyDeleteCorruption is what destroys politics.
Politicians who are prostitutes are corrupt. Working for the highest bidder defines mercenaries and prostitutes. Those are commercial jobs. Those are prioritizing short-sighted selfishness - the antithesis of politics.
Politics, when it works, is about negotiating the public interest.
Sakari Maaranen Corruption is politics of money. They're only corrupt if they violate campaign funding laws.
ReplyDeleteDan Weese you are talking about predatory private business. Not politics. You are describing the worst subcategory of private interest, after outright criminal activity. You are not talking about the concept of public interest. What you say can be damaging, because it confuses people obscuring the very meaning of public interest and demoralizing people from trusting politics. This way you are perpetuating the problem and discouraging people from voting. Don't be a part of the problem. Be a part of the solution. Help people find integrity and understand the meaning of common interest.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone gets on the academia bandwagon, he's expected to get out there and Dance the Little Dance and get grant money flowing in. See, Rhys has a great point, scientists should not compromise their independence - but the border between science and politics doesn't really exist. Both scientists and politicians are forever on the stroll. We don't like politicians or scientists grubbing for money, but both do - and neither much likes that greasy pole dancing.
ReplyDeleteDan Weese you are effectively saying "everything is supposed to be corrupt". I strongly disagree.
ReplyDeleteSakari Maaranen I am saying, however tiresomely and repetitively, politicians do the will of those who control them, as will anyone, when he is controlled by effective leadership. It's sposta be the voters in control and everyone with a lick of sense understands that is impossible, not when it takes a billion dollars and more to get elected president. That money doesn't come for free. And it's perfectly legal under the US SCOTUS case Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission .
ReplyDeleteSo let's dispense with all this strenuous hectoring about Corruption. It's not corruption if it's legal. So if we want politicians to do our bidding, we must convince them by whatever means is necessary. Otherwise they're going to do what they're paid to do and say what they're paid to say. Appeals to conscience or patriotism or unctuous hectoring about the Will of the People are worthless. Men are motivated by fear and allegiance and by no other reason.
Dan Weese I warn you, my friend, that I am close to the point of doing something I don't usually do - that means blocking you, knowingly because of your opinion.
ReplyDeleteI normally block for trolling and nasty personal attacks. You are not doing any of that. You are arguing your views fairly.
Nevertheless, the views you are arguing for are inherently dangerous - normalization of criminal levels of corruption. You talk like a mafioso, committed to making corruption legal. An essential part of that is having lost one's sense of justice and moral compass.
Your level of cynicism is dangerous.
I may block you because of that. Because of your way of thinking that needs to be reduced, not propagated.
I am not suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind. Feel free. I just don't want to hear that line of speech myself, because of its cynicism and how it attempts to obscure my thinking and forces me to response mode.
I just want you to know you did nothing wrong per se, if I block you. I just actively reject what you are standing for here.
Sakari Maaranen My level of cynicism arises from having practical experience of how government works, both as a soldier and a contractor. I do not propose to normalise any of this. I want a government of all the people and that requires a frank understanding of human motivation. Remove the money from the equation, make politicians into referees and not players, the problem goes away instantly. Cynicism supposes nothing will change. I have no expectation of human nature changing. Laws can be changed. Laws can be enforced. But that simply will not happen, not while the politicians can be cowed into fearful submission or reduced to prostitution by a handful of moneyed interests. And those forces, Sakari, require keeping both eyes open to harsh realities.
ReplyDeleteDan Weese corruption really is nothing new. Really, nothing new. Understanding the reality of corruption and conflicts of interest at various levels is very much standard practice and that does not mean it had to be accepted or condoned. Some countries have political culture that is more mature with resistance to corruption; for example Denmark and New Zealand. Still, conflicts of interest happen everywhere, including within the least corrupt countries. It's a lot like fighting disease. Disease happens, but we only need to understand that as doctors and patients - not seeking to become ill just because we will anyway. Embrace effective care - not the disease.
ReplyDeleteSakari Maaranen I'm not particularly happy with how you've chosen to interpret what I have been saying. This, I suppose, to be my own fault: it's not what I say, it's what others hear. Failure to communicate on my part.
ReplyDeleteI'm a broken man. Like an old piece of crockery, glued back together, both literally and metaphorically, too many times. Threatening to block me, well, if I'm to be attacked for being cynical, I love the word Disillusioned. It's a word mostly used by stupid people, learning something very much against their will. I'm past being disillusioned. I wish scientists would step up to the plate and enter the world of politics, Rhys' conclusions notwithstanding. The fate of the world depends upon disillusionment, the dispelling of idiotic ideas and faith-based bollocks, the curse of the world. If not the scientists, then whom?
We had a visitor from Bremen, Germany come to visit, someone we'd known from Guatemala. Nice enough woman, bit of a New Age-y sort of person, into astrology. My son, then eight, scornfully told her "Magic attempts to control the world. Science attempts to understand the world. And that's why science will always win."
Some of us, like Rhys Taylor here, hope they can live in an ivory tower, isolated from worldly concerns, too dirty to touch.
ReplyDeleteSome, like you Dan Weese, speak so that it sounds like you had given up. Perhaps you didn't mean we should just dive in, wrestling in the mud, or wallowing there like pigs. For a moment it sounded like that.
How about trying something between these extremes.
No, Sakari Maaranen, I don't wish to live in an ivory tower, and have in fact spoken out loudly against these accusations of scientific "elitism" (leaving aside the dubiously derogatory use of the word "elite") many times. While science has to be non-partisan to function correctly, it's not realistic to expect scientists to be so detached. Like every other group they have the right to protest, to advocate for certain policies and engage in political debate. But lawmaking ? That is a step too far. Science is not a democratic process, nor should it be seen as one. Science is objective, not impartial. Science determines facts. You cannot and should not vote on facts.
ReplyDeleteThat's true Rhys Taylor, science is not democratic. However, the same person can participate in many kinds of processes. You may have political opinions and vote even if you measure the spectra of stars or the thickness of Greenland's ice cover. You don't lose your citizen's rights, including your right to participate in politics, by becoming a scientist.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Sakari Maaranen, everyone has the right to participate in the political system. And one or two scientists becoming politicians will not bring about the End of Days. Some ministerial positions would certainly benefit from greater scientific expertise. And, as I think you said in the other thread, a high level of education in the political system is no bad thing. But it's less an issue of rights and more of responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is that if you start creating large numbers of scientist-politicians (especially_en masse_ but also gradually), you risk turning science into a political movement. This is especially dangerous in the hyper-partisan two-party system of the US, since for obvious reasons hardly any scientists will join the Republican party. It won't even matter if, somehow, they retain their objectivity - voters will not perceive this. If voters are to have any chance at all of making decisions based on evidence, the source of that evidence must be clearly non-partisan. Currently, science fills that role - but even in the current system, the post-truthers have managed to twist objective science into political currency (cough cough AL GORE ! cough cough GLOBAL WARMING ! cough cough....). And unlike science, political reality is a slippery, subjective thing that depends on what people believe. Throw large numbers of scientists into this and any hope of evidence-based policies will be lost forever. The only way to avoid this would be to find a replacement source of independent, non-partisan knowledge. Since science by far the best way of determining facts, this would not work.
What could work is to educate people about how science is really done, starting from primary school. Teach them facts, but also teach them how those facts were derived. Teach them about the controversies science experienced and all the bitter, acrimonious arguments it went through before it arrived at a conclusion - because teaching the conclusions without teaching people that the alternatives were already exhaustively tested is folly. And smash forever the image of the scientist as an old white dude with crazy hair; let people realise that movie scientists are not like real scientists; let them understand that scientists are doing things because they genuinely want to understand how the world works and are not seeking to affirm their own dogma (the next of kin to political partisanship), that they are every bit as human as everyone else with all the biases that that implies, and that's why a strong scientific consensus is the best basis of knowledge that we've got. And show them not as the lone genius of myth, but as the whole spectrum of humanity that they are, from the introverted hermit who lives in the departmental broom cupboard to the drunken socialite. Break the image of the scientist as the unfeeling monster.
That's Stage 1. Establishing the credibility, objectivity, and non-political nature of science is a necessary but not sufficient for eroding support for policies which the evidence says would not work. People are more complicated than that. The old question, "Do you want to be right or do you want to win ?" has only one sensible answer : both. You must first establish what the correct policy is (as best you're able) otherwise there's no point in winning the argument. Equally, there's no point in being right if you don't persuade people you're right - and even if they can see the evidence staring them in the face, that's no guarantee they will then vote for the best policy.
Stage 2 is, as Dan Weese says, the art of rhetoric. Present people not just with the raw data and/or the stated policy, but with the reasons why this will improve their specific
lives. But that is another story. It is so much more complicated than simply getting more scientists into politics. That would only work if you're a) naive enough to believe people will listen to reason or that scientists (who make terrible managers) would be capable of reforming a complex political system or b) you're cynical enough to choose philosopher-kings over democracy. Personally, I prefer to be neither.
ReplyDeletePlagued by insomnia, paddling around the quiet house with the little cats. My heart is troubled. I am enduring yet another bipolar shift.
ReplyDeleteScience is endemic to the windswept dunes of doubt. I am no professional scientist, I stand at its peripheries, an amateur, who read every issue of Scientific American until it lapsed into silliness. For me, science represents the hope of the world. For those who would say science cannot become a movement, I would bitterly laugh - only those worthy of power would ever say such a thing. Yet they will not accept the mandate thus created. For man is guided more by doubt than the glib certainties of the political rostrum.
Politics, also software development and babies, begin in the back of a good restaurant with a bottle of wine and earnest hopes. Nine months later, it's three o'clock in the morning under bright lights, with a lot of grunting and screaming and biological messes on the floor - whereupon the endless cycle of feeding and diaper changing and the maintenance cycle begins.
O scientists: if you will not accept the burden of being the lights of reason in the world, other, less-principled jackasses will take that mandate from you. In your pettiness, you have become Gullivers, tied down by the threads of Lilliputians. Once kings and emperors feted you, Voltaire and Franklin and Lavoisier, Newton and the the Royal Society, you are too silly to know your own power for good in the world. Nobody has asked you to impose the rules of science upon politics but rather your own ability to reason.
On consideration: it is a good idea for scientists to run for office.
ReplyDeleteIt is an even better idea for scientists to run for office, then get the hell out of office and go back to doing science after only a few years.
One or two house terms in most cases.