/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10881611
>Why is there not a stronger linkage and why are more scientists not involved in politics?
because literally pseudoscience shit has a monopoly in explaining societal issues and literally people chimpout when you try to explain suchs issues from a bio-physc-chem perspective. I blame phylosphy niggers, women and another STEM faggots that want to be involve in the public light.

>>10881611 By transitioning to a system not based on competitive marketing but on science. It's mostly an issue of awareness and technology. Change in geopolitics is even more dependent on general socioeconomic change because it heavily depends on the logic of the world system, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relations)
and
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8

>>10881611
Industry is an abomination

>>10881611
This is more of a topic for /his/.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_ignorance
>The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is the study of ignorance in and of science. The most common way is to see ignorance as something relevant, rather than simply lack of knowledge. There are two distinct areas in which SSI is being studied: some focus on ignorance in scientific research, whereas other focus on public ignorance of science. Sociology of scientific ignorance is a complementary field to the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK).[1]

>>10881611
>Price of non-vital stuff crash
>Vital stuff price is onboard a skyrocket.
>Most americans can't afford fresh food and only buy transformed shits like cheese spray and chocoyum bar without chocolate or KKKruchy Cereals with more sugar than cereals
>It's impossible to leave most american cities by walking or cycling because everything is either made for cars or is private properties
>Americans are, from birth, surrounded by speaking gadgets that bombard them with lies and pornography
>Americans are so stupid and brainwashed that prestigious institution such as the MIT are forced to import hundred thousands of chinks and pajeets to propel american research.
>Check any MIT research team... Names are: Chi Ho, Ming Xin Ping, Prakesh Najaarvalapuror, Raj Neverfoundtheloo or Hans Van Der Hans...
>Intelligents kids are mocked and bullied in schools and become school shooters.
>American enjoy stuff like Oreos, Nascar, South Park and twerking
>Black people in America are become dumber and dumber, the white closely follow that trend.
>The average IQ among the white community is losings 4 point every generation.
>Americans elected a real TV show, illiterate stars as their president.
>Americans play ads for their campain, kek,
>Everything is the commodity
>Most americans think knowledge is a pointless useless thing if you can't make money out of it, they would pick twerking over learning and injecting opioides over a walk in the park.
>Everything is a commodity in America, nothing is sacred. Human life, nature, values. Twerking is the Holy Divinity of America.
>Leftist americans are litteral retards.
>Rightist americans are litteral retards.
>The Pentagon steal 50% of the taxpayer money and they blast it on expensive ivory toilet seats for obese soldiers
>American girls are raised to be sluts and gold diggers
>American boys are raised to be american girls.
Thanks dog I'm swiss.

>>10882033
>>American boys are raised to be american girls.
Nothing bad about this.

>>10881905
based

>>10881611
Its because
>Political "Science" is within the Humanities
>humanitiesfags are brainlets. Their brains are literally incapable of perceiving patterns. All generalizations are bad
>therefore, any scientific approach to politics is frowned upon
Also
>most scientists are unable to market themselves to the public, as it's mostly made of irrational, low IQ people
>many of them lack the practical mindset required to make things work
>politics is a soul-sucking, intellectualy unstimulating field, corrupt to it's core

>>10882279
Humanities are filled with brainiacs. Look at philosophy Chad's and linguistics chads

>>10881681
Thanks for your smart contribution. I wish normal people were as good as you in creating scapegoats.

>>10881611
>How do we take a more scientific approach to politics?
A good start would be opening up the political discourse, as there are many topics which people are unwilling to talk about because they are so divisive.
>Why do we have such a strict separation of government and science?
Because when you live in a democrapcy, politicians will use every edge they can to get re-elected, including ignoring studies which dont confirm their voters' biases.
>Why is there not a stronger linkage and why are more scientists not involved in politics?
Because not only are most scientists autistic loners, but they tend to have horrible views on issues outside of their area of expertise. A lot of people on this board even have this problem; they're experts on one subject, but super brainlet and overconfident about something unrelated. The logic in play is this: "Im really knowledgeable about this one thing, so therefore I must be knowledgeable about all things."
>When it comes to making scientific progress, often politics gets in the way when it comes to everything from funding of research organizations to maintenance
Scientists should just get government funding in exchange for peer-reviewed studies, no strings attached. Having to beg for money really hampers progress in less popular areas and promotes messing with results to get the desired outcome. (Ex. All the studies that said tobacco was non-addictive so they could receive funding from tobacco companies.) This cash flow should also go for duplicate studies and studies without much scientific value. (Many studies arent published because theyre boring or just confirming another study.)
1/2

>>10882279
You have to find other bases than people are stupid Bobby. In second grade, you'll actually need to have substantial thoughts.

>>10882339
>So surely focusing on this aspect, a political one, could actually give more scientific dividends down the line than even engaging in scientific research right now?
You mean like studying policy impacts and different systems/structures of government? Yeah, that'd be pretty cool, but there'd no doubt be shitloads of bias and tampering in those. Also, the research would be pretty slow and difficult.
>surely increasing the educator to researcher ratio a bit would have greater longterm dividends?
The issue isnt so much a lack of teachers, as it is a shitty system of teaching. Government schools are more interested in indoctrinating kids than they are making them critical thinkers. I know that's a pretty common narrative to hear, to the point of sounding meaningless, so I'll go a step further and tell how to fix it; teach facts only and let the students interpret the implications, focus more on teaching independent research and accessing source bias, teach about cultural values from different cultures around the world, challenge students to take non-mainstream positions in papers and projects to normalize dissent from the consensus. These things will make education more objective and promote critical thinking. Too many come out of the system merely towing the party line.
2/2

do creeps have the capacity for politics?

>>10881611

This is what the socialists tried to do in the 19th and early 20th centuries, they used the term 'socialism' - in lieu of 'sociology' - to describe their notions a scientific, empirical approach to the social phenomena of economics, politics, and other forms of human organisation. Suffice to say, they lacked the actual data and equipment to make it work, and all the self-proclaimed Marxist states became impoverished, war torn holes. Now the West's academic youth of non-scientific backgrounds want to try again.

>>10882033
>neverfoubdtheloo
Kek

I really fucking wish you people ever bother reading or at least being ambient exposed to some /lit/.
Trying to "scientifically approach politics" is exactly what Karl Marx did. What we today call "Marxism" Marx and Engels called "scientific socialism".

Also, attitudes like this are indicative of the times we live in. Words like "science", "technology" and "reason" are just buzzwords you throw at stuff hoping they will magically cure social ills.
More fundamentally, at no previous time in history did "politics" somehow translate to a sterile and abstract theorizing about policymaking in a vacuum. Ideas of mass mobilization, of political consciousness, of competing interests, they are all fucking lost on you dopes. Newsflash: You don't just get to come up and declare things to start working differently. Hoping that some generic technocrats ("scientists") will do it for you is even worse. It's childish fantasy.


This thread is the learned helplessness of neoliberalism in action.

>>10882723
dangerously mentally ill retard one of millions like yourself

>>10882691
>If I call my autistic ramblings "scientific" that means I'm right.
How many failed experiments do you need before you scrap the hypothesis?

>>10882745
I'm not a Marxist.
But go read Basic Economics™. Something tells me you haven't.

>>10882754
>I'm not a Marxist.
>But anyone who isnt must not be educated.
Keep dreaming commie.

>>10882762
Why do you hate communism?

>>10882763
>Why do you hate communism?
I like being alive.

>>10882765
You, personally?
You have reason to suspect that communists would try to kill you?

>>10882766
>You, personally? You have reason to suspect that communists would try to kill you?
Well, I meant that communist regimes tend to kill people, but seeing as Im a nazi, yes. Antifa was pretty clear about it.

>>10882780
as we all know, Nazism is a peaceful ideology that doesn't kill anyone.

>>10881611
Please elaborate on what you actually mean by "a more scientific approach to politics".
Do you want STEM researchers to be more involved in politics? Do you want politics to focus more on economics than social issues? Do you want more funding for research and universities? Do you want to force scientists and business owners to collaborate more? Do you want to replace democracy with some sort of meritocracy?
Your question is vague as fuck and you can't expect serious answers until you elaborate.

>>10882789
Hitler explicitly said that I wouldnt be killed. I'd have to take my chances with communism.

>scientific approach
>politics
You wanna know the problem with politics? Misinformation.

Politicians are synonymous with liars. You can't have ANY kind of cultural progress or development when it's being impeded by misinformation and lies. Instead the only progress you get is an increase in our ability of lying, tricking, deceiving, and misinforming.

Proposed solution?:
Create a copyrighted symbol. This symbol will be a promise or oath, that anyone seen wearing this symbol, or displaying it on their TV show is NOT lying or deceiving, or misinforming. How does this oat get enforced? Through copyright control of the symbol. Deny use to all persons of the symbol, unless they pay a membership dues fee (money is to be used for enforcement and litigation) and the person wishing to use the symbol must take the oath to never lie, cheat, or misinform under penalty of fines to be determined at a later date but compatible to the severity of the infraction.
For this to work the system must be self enforced. Members will watch other members, and if one person catches another in a lie, they can report them. The person who made the report receives a portion of the money the other one is fined. This way members are financially incentivized to report on each other.


tl;dr there is far too much deception, trickery, lies, and willful misinformation for politics to ever proceed in a rational/scientific maner

>>10882918
Ah. I'm sure the problem is misinformed voters. Not entrenched interest, no, no...

>>10882931
voters become entrenched due to propaganda and misinformation. It's not possible to have a discussion with these people because they're living in a world build upon lies. Remove those lies, and a conversation can begin. Discussion, negotiation, understanding, and compromises will become possible once again.

>>10882948
>>10882931
The problem is that the general population are retards and someone thought that the best idea was to give them all power of state. In the old days, one guy would make all the decisions and if he pissed enough people off, they'd overthrow him. People knew the price of change and paid it in blood. Nowadays niggers always be talking about change and they get all the retarded shit they want.

What you propose is a wild card for institutions to burn government money, that has absolutely nothing to do with taking a scientific approach to politics.

And your graph is shit.

>>10882963
I'm not saying the system is perfect. Sure it has flaws.

However, even the worst system can function very well if everyone likes it and agrees to do their part. Inversely, even the best system in the world will fail due to corruption. Misinformation is the cornerstone of corruption. Corruption can not exist when exposed in the light of truth. Unless it exists in authoritarian dictatorship like you suggested. In an authoritarian dictatorship corruption can happen in broad sight, and the only way to correct it is civil war/tearing it all down. That's not self regulation, that's self destruction.

>>10882369
Have you never seen that american democrat that sniffs little girls in public?

>>10882999
>Corruption can not exist when exposed in the light of truth.
In democracy, there are just as many places for corruption to hide as in a dictatorship, plus a few more. More politicians, more donors, more bureaucracy, and ballot-stuffing.
>In an authoritarian dictatorship corruption can happen in broad sight
You say that like it's a bad thing. There will always be corruption in government, but at least in a dictatorship it is plain to see. There is no being convinced that it is what "the people" voted for or that you can just "elect someone different" next term. You know what the stakes are and how to change it. This fact also cuts down on flagrant abuse because there is no hiding it. The corruption is kept low because the ruling class knows that everyone knows and what will happen if they fall out of favor. If a politician makes people unhappy, theyre out of a job; if a dictator does, theyre either getting coup'd or revolution. Dictatorship is a more effective way of keeping the government in line with the interests of the people.
>the only way to correct it is civil war/tearing it all down. That's not self regulation, that's self destruction
That fact is what disincentivizes people from effecting unnecessary change. In a democracy, people just get whatever they want with no regard for the long-term consequences. In a dictatorship, the government can implement unpopular, yet necessary polices because the people wont be able to pay get rid of them with barely any effort. They must choose if their cause is worth the strife, keeping the government more stable.

>>10882999
>Corruption can not exist when exposed in the light of truth.
In democracy, there are just as many places for corruption to hide as in a dictatorship, plus a few more. More politicians, more donors, more bureaucracy, and ballot-stuffing.
>In an authoritarian dictatorship corruption can happen in broad sight
You say that like it's a bad thing. There will always be corruption in government, but at least in a dictatorship it is plain to see. There is no being convinced that it is what "the people" voted for or that you can just "elect someone different" next term. You know what the stakes are and how to change it. This fact also cuts down on flagrant abuse because there is no hiding it. The corruption is kept low because the ruling class knows that everyone knows and what will happen if they fall out of favor. If a politician makes people unhappy, theyre out of a job; if a dictator does, theyre either getting coup'd or revolution. Dictatorship is a more effective way of keeping the government in line with the interests of the people.
>the only way to correct it is civil war/tearing it all down. That's not self regulation, that's self destruction
That fact is what disincentivizes people from effecting unnecessary change. In a democracy, people just get whatever they want with no regard for the long-term consequences. In a dictatorship, the government can implement unpopular, yet necessary polices because the people wont be able to get rid of them with barely any effort. They must choose if their cause is worth the strife, keeping the government more stable.

>>10881611
people are brainlets so patterns and models are almost useless
politics is more like a wild ride

>>10883100
>There will always be corruption in government, but at least in a dictatorship it is plain to see.
You assume authoritarian dictatorship are incapable of misinformation. They may not have a pressing need to hide every little wrong thing they do, but they certainly are capable, and certainly hide the VERY VERY wrong things that they do.
>That fact is what disincentivizes people from effecting unnecessary change.
Change is a good thing. Change is growth. Change is progress. Change is the ultimate goal of learning new things. Nobody is infallible. Arguably, not even god is infallible. No government is infallible. When a mistake is discovered there needs to be an admission that a mistake has occurred, and then change must follow to prevent it from happening again. If any damages occurred from this mistake, it should be considered if remediation/compensation is warranted.
This is the price of learning. All learning and lesson in life come with their own price. To deny change, is to pay the price of a lesson learned, without actually learning anything from it.

Read Plato's The Republic, he explains how. Definitely not going to happen in a democratic or pretend democratic government.

>>10883761
>You assume authoritarian dictatorship are incapable of misinformation. They may not have a pressing need to hide every little wrong thing they do, but they certainly are capable, and certainly hide the VERY VERY wrong things that they do.
The same can be said of democracies.
>Change is a good thing. Change is growth. Change is progress. Change is the ultimate goal of learning new things. Nobody is infallible. No government is infallible.
Of course all governments make changes, not just democracies. In dictatorships, though, the people are more limited in the amount of change they can effect without serious sacrifice. This allows the government to look out for the people's long-term prosperity with unpopular policies, while balancing them with popular changes.
>When a mistake is discovered there needs to be an admission that a mistake has occurred, and then change must follow to prevent it from happening again.
This is rare in democracies, today.
>If any damages occurred from this mistake, it should be considered if remediation/compensation is warranted.
Bruh, US law states that if the government fucks you up, it has no obligation to compensate you. The only reason you would be legally entitled to compensation is if the damages resulted from negligence, and even then, good luck actually getting it when the Fed. employs 100 lawyers and pulls out every delaying tactic in the book. All governments hate to be criticized.

>>10883761 #
>You assume authoritarian dictatorship are incapable of misinformation. They may not have a pressing need to hide every little wrong thing they do, but they certainly are capable, and certainly hide the VERY VERY wrong things that they do.
The same can be said of democracies.
>Change is a good thing. Change is growth. Change is progress. Change is the ultimate goal of learning new things. Nobody is infallible. No government is infallible.
Of course all governments make changes, not just democracies. In dictatorships, though, the people are more limited in the amount of change they can effect without serious sacrifice. This allows the government to look out for the people's long-term prosperity with unpopular policies, while balancing them with popular changes.
>When a mistake is discovered there needs to be an admission that a mistake has occurred, and then change must follow to prevent it from happening again.
This is rare in democracies, today.
>If any damages occurred from this mistake, it should be considered if remediation/compensation is warranted.
Bruh, US law states that if the government fucks you up, it has no obligation to compensate you. The only reason you would be legally entitled to compensation is if the damages resulted from negligence, and even then, good luck actually getting it when the Fed. employs 100 lawyers and pulls out every delaying tactic in the book. All governments hate to be criticized.

>>10883102 It also depends on education, the social environment, media and whether and which patterns stop working for people.
Politics is or probably rather has become ad-hoc interventions because it's such an suboptimal approach while progress is accelerating.

>>10882918
could this idea really work?

imagine if this really caught on you started to see people all around your city or town wearing these badges.
It would pretty much brand anybody not wearing them as a liar. People would be pressured into joining the band wagon. Imagine a world where you could tell who to trust and who was a liar just by looking at a pin/badge on their chest. Once the number of honest people outnumber the number of liars the world could drastically change rather quickly.

>>10882918
>>10885722
came up with this idea after playing around with
https://ncase.me/trust/
It's a little interactive thing that uses game theory to explain that basically if people believe the world is full of liars and cheats, then they themselves will become a liar and a cheat. By having an identifier marking someone as trustworthy, it reduces the likely hood that someone will become a liar and cheat. This has recursive/chain reaction effect where society as a whole no longer has any liars and cheats.

You wanted science and politics. Well there's my game theory idea of how to fix politics.