/sci/ - Science & Math

It works in China.
Not really physicists, but every major figure in the CCP comes feom a STEM background. Technocracy is not a meme, and I believe that the West's decline has mostly happened because we have been entrusting our governance to fraudsters feom social sciences and humanities. Kill lawyers and economists.

>>12442826
two of those people are active scientists

>>12442826
Except they are not scientist. They are media guests. A world ruled by them is a world ruled by MegaCorp.

>>12442826
wousnlt they all vote for open boarders because humanity is all the same culture and implement retarded utilitarianism policies like kill white babies because they consume more resources than brown babies?

>>12442904
Technocracy is the best way to govern us now. It was cool to have literal retards at the head oaf a state when the world was simple but not anymore.

>>12442944
>killing main source of qualified labour as automation erases low skill jobs
No, but maybe if asians and jews reproduce enough, since they're smarter.

>>12442826
""""scientists""""" are people too, flawed people, no one is perfect.

>>12442944
>He still believes that these ultra capitalistic retards are left wingers...

You don't find left scientist in the media.

>>12442904
This but also
>>12442938
This
Might as well as have an AI overlord, at least that one we can actually see the biases
The academe is nit free from politics anon

>>12442826
>"The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards"
>William Francis Butler
Fact: If you're smart enough to be considered an intellectual you MUST get fit in order to reach your full potential.

>>12442970
>left: legends of rational thought and human knowledge of reality
>right: tv clowns

>>12442976
What’s a left scientist

>>12442826
Most politicians are not stupid. They're greedy and corrupt. And that is because they are human and they can. Scientists are just humans who can't.

More STEM in politics is a good thing. It would improve policy in areas like energy, environmental protection telecommunications, transportation etc. but outside of that it wouldn't make a significant difference.

>>12442904
That must be why the Chinese government is devoid of any humanity, as they are tracking their citizens via a social credit system, eroding Hong Kong's liberties, and locking up Ughyurs in concentration camps

>>12443024
First, it's a scientist that doesn't sell his/her soul for money or for 5 minutes of fame on a tv channel.

A philosopher king would be vastly superior to a bunch of STEMtard engicuck retards running shit, unless they were pure mathematicians of course.

>>12443036
Yes it would.
Why do you think physics and math rejects abound in finance and technology? Knowing how to think is a skill that hard sciences cultivate like no other field, and if you know how to thinknyou can learn anything and excel.
t. physics reject working in an investment bank

>>12443070
The people who are unironically pro-China have literally daddy/mommy issues, they want this big authoritarian government ruling over them. They are like little children

>>12442904
Fuck off you microdick twink.
>>12443122
This.

>>12443070
Yes, technocracies aren't specially humanistic, it's a trade-off. Although you should not ignore Confucianism's role and the lag y of communism in how the Chinese state operate, it's not purely because of it being technocratic.

>>12443162
*legacy of communism

>>12442826
dichotomy for retards.
“imagine a world ruled by” is asshole politics.
“imagine a world NOT ruled by” is what you really want.

>>12442826
It's not ruled by politicians.

>>12442826
Why do we focus on individuals or classes of people, and not organizational structures which amplify or attenuate certain behaviors? A person's actions in an environment are necessarily restricted by that environment. If you cannot change the environment, you cannot change the person so that the person must change the environment in order to change themselves.

>>12443351
it is, you just separate “politicians” from “people who pay for politicians” in your mind because you’re a midwit

>>12443036
>scientists can't be currupted
this is the kind of blind thinking that creates dystopias
I can't stress enough how wrong it is

Scientists are individually smart but collectively dumb. An organization's effectiveness is not just determined by the competence and intelligence of it's individuals members, but by the flow of information and how those members interact with eachother. A council of scientists would be too absorbed in their own egos and bicker about finer points too much to ever inspire loyalty or prove effective in the navigating the real world of governance and administration.

The military teaches soldiers at the lower ranks to have loyalty and discipline, so they would be better than scientists at responding to issues in real time under immense pressure. They would be very efficient at distribution, but would have their own problems as well.

The clergy is historically a powerful part of politics, and while the faults of this organization are often mocked an well know in modern times, it's benefits are often overlooked. By insisting to it's members and the commoners that they serve God they make people less attached to earthly desires and stop them from rationalizing destructive action. It's moral precepts are "good enough" for society, and it is better for most of the people to strongly believe in good morals than to weakly believe in a complex network or refined perfect morals.

>>12442965
so they would kill the brown babies?

>>12443941
based.

>>12442904
economics is literally based on mathematics dipshit. The chinese technocracy is filled with economists

>>12443941
>Scientists are individually smart but collectively dumb
Disagree. Scientists are individually dumb. Scientists should fuck off and make their own neighborhoods better first, before they worry about “the world”

>>12444114
>Scientists are individually dumb.
I mean smart as in intelligence, but not wisdom. Most scientists I've met are more intelligent compared to the average person, but sometimes that intelligence makes them arrogant and unwise, thinking they can disregard those who aren't as smart or that they know better than old customs or allegories.

>>12442904
this is true
but
(1)there is a lot more to the ccp system. everyone at the top is a career politician so they have an idea about how government works. this is really where their strength is. Where we have people who spent 20 years in coal getting appointed to heading up the education department, they would have someone you spend 20 years in education, learning how the budgets work, purcurmwnt, etc.
experts are always the people who actually do, not the people who study the people that do.
(2) this does not invalid (1) but be wary of credentialism, less than 1% pass the government test but that also encourages a lot of cheating and teaching to the test to get in the door

>>12443941
Effectively wrong. There is no other human activity where cooperation is as encouraged as academia. Professionals do visiting years in "rival" unis to further their research by cooperating with other researchers they weren't close to. It's cooperating while trying to weed out the truth at the end, competing cooperation. Also the fact that conferences are an essential part of it.
Humans will be humans, so of course it isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the representative systems we all have where effectively two or three guys call the shots and the administrations/governments follow their lead without contesting their wrong choices. Academia promotes healthy confrontation, politics promotes gang dynamics and tribalism.

>>12444203
Yes, that is true, they choose their path as politicians and then embrace it fully.
I was just saying it as a cultural bias, in the east, science and tech is still considered a mark of individual quality, in the west you're a weirdo (unless there's a crysis, then they beg you to develop weaponry and vaccines).
But I wasn't trying to praise the chink system, I was just saying that a certain degree of technocracy is desirable and NEEDED, I think your point about head of cabinets is a good one, and it is still enforced more or less in some western countries. Using China was the most notorious example of this type of culture actually generating good results as they're catching up in every single quantitative regard. I still value personal freedom above that, so other anons do not assume I'm shilling for the bugs, I prefer being free but I'm not going to pretend that having lawyers and managers running our countries isn't a huge cancer.

>>12444217
Lol, no, academia rewards cooperation with Halliburton and Raytheon. It’s a boardroom of secular catholicism, not an anarchist’s cookbook.

>>12444329
I guess it depends on the communities. The gatekeeping is very needed though, because otherwise it would be cranks everywhere.
I'm not even a researcher, this is just my personal opinion based on the short time I spent in uni, never as a professional researcher, so the projects I was in were always like fun hobbies for me.

>>12444217
The only reason they are able to debate and challenge each-other to that degree is because the problems scientists are trying to solve are extremely narrow in scope, and they have a fundamentally different goal from that of politicians. Even if society was as simple as model for a molecular interaction (which it emphatically isn't), scientists still expend huge amounts of time and effort to reach consensus on many issues, which is not acceptable in the realm of governance.

>>12444361
>I'm not even a researcher, this is just my personal opinion based on the short time I spent in uni, never as a professional researcher
Take it from me as someone who did research in a few fields and used to idolize scientists in undergrad. Academia is not as infallible as you think it is.

>>12444393
The acceptable precision in hard sciences differs greatly from the one needed in governance. You cannot be precise with a wide scope. But you can have a wider scope and accept higher discrepancies in your conjectures.

>>12444107
Economists love to convince themselves they do math, university level economics math is what any competent *actual* scientist could have done as a high schooler. It is a useful field in many ways, but they should stop trying to pretend to be something they're not

>>12444440
I don't idolize scientists. In fact, I didn't go to do a PhD and just did an MSc because I hates the strict social contract in academia and the lack of freedom (unless you've already proven yourself as a genius).
But at least scientists know how to think thoroughly and using basic causal logic. Managers and politicians lead based on their own personal myths and never try to tackle issues rationally or to consider various hypotheses. This also happens in supposedly rational institutions (I work at an investment bank), no one actually is able to sit down and say "all right, what's the problem? What are our different scenarios, what are the conjectures? What are the possible consequences of the different olans of actions? What is the probability adjusted gain/loss on taking path X or path Y?"

At least scientists think about problems rationally, and I only really noticed that when I left uni and went to the industry.

>>12442826
From that list I only like Leonard Susskind.

>>12444361
No one I know is worried about “cranks.” That’s an internet meme. I’d trade any number of gatekeeping Karens for a single colorful crank.

>>12444107
Ahahahahahahahaha

>>12444498
Basically this. They think basic time series analysis is math.

>>12444518
I bet Witten gets 100 emails a day from schizos like El Arcon abiut their theories of quantum flgravity based on the symmetries of the holy trinity or ancient egyptian ratios.

>>12442826
PhDs aren't PhDs just to write policies and debate them. They should stay in their niche, else research would halt and we would all be fucked

>>12444449
And what about the reproducibility of science in disciplines with the large scope? Isn't there a crisis in psychology? The dimensionality and complexity is so high that it just becomes full of airheads who live by "well if nobody knows, then anything goes!".

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't perform a controlled, repeatable, experiment in a laboratory then it doesn't deserve to be called science.

>>12444518
Additionally, they should be, since cranks are bow gaining credibility with the uneducated crowd due to YouTube. See Weinstein and Wolfram.
There's an actual physicist form a US uni shilling Weinstein on his youtibe channel everyday, I never watched the videos but they're always being recommended to me, I think the guy is named Brian Keeting. I got bombarded with his videos after I watched the 2020 steing theory conference lectures.

>>12444549
My argument for defending technocracy isn't because I think governance should be treated as a scientific experiment. It's because physicist and mathematicians can think deeply and tackle complex problems a lot better (on average) than any politician. Not all of them would serve, but then you can filter them for emotional strenght, charisma, etc, but keep the strong logical background.

>>12444578
Yeah, they can think deeply and tackle complex MATH problems. They can tackle complex PHYSICS problems. The end result will be the same.

>>12444535
I bet he doesn’t, and I further bet that even if he did it wouldn’t matter because we all have admin

>>12442826
none of these are scientists

>>12444556
Why should people in a field be worried about people not in a field?

>>12444507
Rationality is powerful, but not everything. The bulk of human knowledge in navigating everyday life is not obtained rationally. Every time you have a moral reaction or feel something in your gut, that is a feeling that survived through many successful generations of evolution trying to tell you something. Every major religion has not only survived for thousands of years, but more importantly the peoples who practice it have survived. Many animals also survive just fine without reason, or at least far less reason than humans have. Relying on reason alone is a recipe for disaster, scientists who buy into this idea are the type of people who create an atom bomb and similar technologies that put us closer to the brink of extinction.

>>12442904
Last time i heard they are not really a technocracy anymore and their higher positions are now filled with people from law. Also it wouldnt make sense considering the food crisis they are in.

>>12444608
susskind

>>12444607
I'm a phd at a top physics uni and I get crank emails weekly
this one guy who emails me very often even made a thread on 4chan a few weeks ago with the same subject lol

>>12444620
Because there's a (long, down the line if this momentum keeps up) risk of public perception eventually leading to them being defunded in favour of the cranks.

>>12444589
I think you're being naive. Government problems are 90% numerical problems. No one says you need a machine-like institution, but a biss less "feeling" and a lot more thinking is very needed these days.

>>12444692
>susskind
>theoretical physics
>string theory
meme fields, meme science
theoretical physics is an irrelevant piss session, academically speaking

>>12442826
All of those guys are politicians anyways

>>12444698
>I'm a phd at a top physics uni and I get crank emails weekly
>this one guy who emails me very often even made a thread on 4chan a few weeks ago with the same subject lol
I quoted your whole post in the hopes that you would read it again.

>>12444662
I think that's a strawman. They're also the same people that allow you to travel the whole world instantaneous, that allow you to communicate with people on space, to explore outside our galaxy through light emission, yo communicate instantaneous with someone on the other aide of the globe, to amass enormous amounts of knowledge in your pocket, to allow you to have a chance at tackling cancer and other diseases, etc. As complexity in society increases, the need foe rationality in leadership also increases. You cannot dissociate emotion from rationality, as irrational people are also characterized by erratic emotions. Rational people are aware of their emotions, mathematical "intuition" is also greatly interlinked with emotion, every mental process kind of is linked with other processes, it's hard to separate them as diasociated streams.

>>12444699
>public perception
You chose the wrong field.

>>12444728
yes, both of these things are true

>>12442904
>Kill lawyers and economists.

>>12444676
Really? Could be the natural outcome of bureocracy. But Xinis a chemical.engineer and a bunch of other guys around him and also all from STEM.

>"Scientists" and "Experts"

>>12444698
Not sure if based, or based-cringe.

>>12444736
Who funds academia? Taxpayers, mostly.

>>12444744
This guy is a massive crank and fraudstee, by the way. Seriously, just read his """papers""".

>>12444728
what's the matter? you had to leave after getting btfo'd?

>>12444738
>that 3rd one
That's an institutional email. Gotta love state subsidised cranks.

>>12444761
yep. have you?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.1189.pdf

>>12442826
I can't, you remain free to imagine that any number of those people are scientists

>>12444818
gabriel is evidently a "senior professor at the university of bucharest" too

>>12444734
>They're also the same people that allow you to travel the whole world instantaneous, that allow you to communicate with people on space, to explore outside our galaxy through light emission, yo communicate instantaneous with someone on the other aide of the globe, to amass enormous amounts of knowledge in your pocket, to allow you to have a chance at tackling cancer and other diseases, etc. As complexity in society increases, the need foe rationality in leadership also increases.
Humanity survived fine without any of this. And now it's not just a matter of convenience and benefit, we are critically dependent on it and it's more difficult to survive without it. If the grid goes out millions of people starve. The more complex a system becomes, the more fragile it becomes. If the US infrastructure or any other secular highly developed country fell apart, you know who would be most likely to survive? The Amish.

>>12444821
Yes.
Have you ever read his """paper""" with Mandelbrot """debinking""" the Black-Scholes formula? It's absolutely incredible how that shit even got accepted by the peer review.

>>12444821
Wow
>Fragility
You meant, leptokurtosis?

>>12444826
Do they create fake emails?

>>12444828
You undereatima

>>12444857
this one is from his yahoo, so I can only assume it's his personal email. it links to his google scholar and youtube channel

>>12444828
You understimate humanity, I believe.
Also, there's no non-aesthetic argument to argue against or in favour of progress in knowledge and technology. And my aesthetic view is that striving for improvement and to perfect paradigms is better.

>>12444865
Incredible.
Only after I left my BSc uni did I realise that one or two of my professors wete cranks (one was a cosmologist PhD drom Cambridge that was trying to do quantum gravity while ignoring string theory; the other was a hidden variables apologist).

>>12444873
Don't get my wrong. I'm not against science and technology. I think space in particular is a good use of humanities efforts and talents, that if mastered would ensure our survival more completely.

What I'm against is the notion that it would be better if scientists ran things, and that reason should be held as superior. I think it's good that that currently isn't totally the case, and that humanity may live by cautiously stepping into the future with one foot held back in traditional wisdom.

>>12444937
I wouldn't necessarily say professional scientists, but people that were forced to study hard, logical subjects.
In ancient greece it would have been geometry and philosophy, for example.

The opinion of scientist's is irrelevant outside of their limited fields, and even in those limited fields, they are very susceptible to corruption and lying. Technocracy is just another kiddie authoritarian fantasy.

>>12444848
not necessarily. It's about the consequences of adhering to models assuming fitness and first order effects.
basically saying Mao vs birds is no different from the Fed vs volatility

>>12444873
Technology has literally made life worse. You worship it as a god while it seeks to reduce the human condition to being a bug person living in a pod with a chip in their brain.

>>12444734
>They're also the same people that allow you to travel the whole world instantaneous, that allow you to communicate with people on space, to explore outside our galaxy through light emission, yo communicate instantaneous with someone on the other aide of the globe, to amass enormous amounts of knowledge in your pocket, to allow you to have a chance at tackling cancer and other diseases, etc.

We don't need any of that bullshit.

>>12444974
>Technology has literally made life worse
yea dude the wheel and agriculture are the greatest contributors to human suffering.

>>12444989
>yea dude the wheel and agriculture are the greatest contributors to human suffering.

The first agriculturalists were more malnourished than hunter-gatherers and that's a fact. Technology before the industrial revolution was largely beneficial, but it went off the rails in the 1800's and is now destined to either collapse modern civilization due to resource exhaustion, or, if it survives, turn people into microchipped drones made docile by genetic engineering.

>>12444970
I'm going tongive yet another chance and read that paper.
This is the 3rd time Taleb, this better be the time I read something sensible from your ass.

>>12442826
How about imagining a world where nobody rules over anybody else?

>>12444734
The industrial revolution made life way worse for the commoner before it made things better, and even now the buck of being factory slaves has been passed to third worlders.

>>12444974
No, the society created around that tech might be. But that society only exists because of myths you choose to take part in. You can pick and choose some and not have bad consequences. I don't use social media, for example, yet my smartphone is fantastic tool for me to searxh whatever piece of knowledge I might be curious about at any given instant.

>>12445016
So imagine human extinction???

>>12444989
>>12445008
Yeah, I too read "Sapiens", kids. That's ocerreducionist.

>>12445022
>No, the society created around that tech might be

Yeah we could conceivably keep modern technological developments while not allowing it to fuck up everything and live something like how the Predators in those movies live, but no one genuinely believes humans could collectively keep their hands out of that cookie jar.

>>12442904
This but unironically.

>>12445027
I haven't read it myself. Sounds interesting, though. I'm just Tedpilled.

>>12443070
>muh Ughyurs
I love how imprisoning Islamic terrorists is suddenly another holocaust when it's in Chyna.

>>12443070
> eroding Hong Kong's liberties
Good, one less vector for State Department/Blue Gov shenanigans to fuck things up.
>locking up Ughyurs in concentration camps
Its certainly better than what the west does by simultaneously trying to pander, bomb and insult muslims all at the same time.

>>12443122
>authoritarian
All authoritarian means is "outside of liberalism's cargo cult" if you read your Filmer or de Maistre you'd know that all government is inherently absolutist.

>>12445016
An Impossibility because there's no getting rid of sovereignty .

>>12445070
its the same thing with Chechens, westoids were drooling all over them in the 90s when they were giving Russia problems, but when mountain savage diaspora in America or Western Europe beads a teacher or builds a bomb out of pressure cooker they're not so enthusiastic about them.

>>12445027
There's no such thing as over reductionist. It's impossible to argue all the intricacies of an idea, so you have to reduce it to the most basic sentiment and argue that.
Here the argument boils down to: new thing bad because can cause physical or existential suffering. But that's just the gamble you make when you're alive. we have to search for a way to lessen suffering, but sometimes the new thing found can cause more. that doesn't mean the pursuit itself is bad. It's the nature of reality that's the culprit here.

>>12445039
This is the only real argument against technological progress.
That as our power grows so to does our power to fuck up. And we fuck up a LOT. as tech progresses the it becomes easier to end all human life which is the worst possible outcome.

>>12444974
objective poverty is at its lowest point in history but okay.

>>12443941
High IQ post

>>12442826
Lol. The world is. It's called nature and it doesn't care for popular science.

>>12442826
Most scientists are too autistic to lead people. That's part of why they're scientists.

>>12445123
>This is the only real argument against technological progress

It makes life worse for one.

>>12445131
>objective poverty is at its lowest point in history but okay.

The concept of "poverty" has little meaning outside of the industrialized monetary system. A hunter-gatherer with no "formal" job who eats his fill of wild game, has a cool outfit made from their hides, two wives, and seven kids is, technically, in poverty, because he makes $0 dollars a year, but does he care?

Not really.
I hope you're aware that bringing western living standards to the whole world will make the industrial system collapse due to resource shortages even faster.

>>12442904
holy based

>>12443092
>philosopher king
>'Uhhh everything is relative, now get back to work'
Yeah, i don't see it happening.

>>12443092

>>12442826
Einstein thought that socialism was a good and viable economic model, so of course this is fucking stupid. Stop being a retard who thinks being smart in ONE area means you are automatically smart in literally every other area.

>>12445392
cringe and yikes post desu senpai

do some reading kid lol

>>12445392
Within the context of Republic, "philosopher" is used more to mean "one who is willing to accept all forms of wisdom" than the modern sense of the term. I think the modern state of philosophy is quite shameful, since it often deters the inquiry and discussion that are central to philosophy.
The closest examples to a proper philosopher king would be enlightened despots and theocrats, though even they tend to fail at their roles.

>>12445416
Tbf, he said that at a time it wasn't largely empirically discredited.

>>12442826

Meme refutation

>>12445484
Even now, it's not really discredited, though we do know that socialist regimes tend to suffer from massive administrative bloat and cronyism. That can also be attributed to the fact that most socialist countries were controlled by ideological forces, which reward cronyism and tend to be less politically competent.
In other terms, I think socialism might work, but socialists make it fail.

>>12445484
Of course it was discredited. It literally advocates the abolition of money. That's the economic equivalent of saying that science would be better without double-blind studies. It's so obviously retarded to ANYONE who understands economics that him NOT knowing that still proves my point.

>>12445548
That's communism, not socialism, anon. Communists in theory want to use socialism to achieve their aims, but I don't think they're really trying to do that.
Besides, barter was a functional system of trade for thousands of years (and is still used today). It's just that currency provides a more universal method of trade with a more concrete value.
I recall one of Marx's critiques of capitalism was that it has led to a paradigm where finance is fraudulent and removes the trade aspect (i.e. it becomes a system where you insert money to make more money, rather than do any work such as producing goods). Of course, communists tend not to make that argument because most of them don't stand to gain from it, as opposed to seizing ownership of the companies they work in.

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/295766901