/sci/ - Science & Math

tag line:

"We are that party that can most accurately predict your death."

captcha: terminal avaidev

Are we discussing what isn't scientific about political science? I don't get it, there is not science in your post, you should add some more science so that it makes sense. Science.

>No opinions. Data-driven Legislation.
Prove by data alone that we need a government at all. So what if people murder each other? You think it's wrong or at least undesirable? That's just your opinion, man.

The world map of the original post is country size according to gdp.

<=== This is a world map showing country size according to homicide rates.

captcha: gun vesseque

>>2958015
Ok. Very fair demand. Hear me out. Mice might actually be the most intelligent animals on Earth, so it might take me a bit more time to extrapolate.

I'm simply suggesting that the scientists of the world group together to elect as many as possible from among us to be responsible for making scientifically-informed and empirically-driven policy decisions instead of the laughable popularity / bling-bling contests that now cause so much inane suffering.

>>2958062

>>2958053
Those popularity contests are about deciding things like whether it is right for the government to meddle in people's lives if by doing so it improves them. How do you settle that with empirical methods?

>>2958018

Right now people are of the opinion that... [insert whatever nonsense your legislators are talking about right now instead of debating the amazing things coming out in our scientific journals].

Putting some scientists in Parliament would turn heads and improve the world simply by being there because they would start talking about... you know... real stuff...

'n' stuff.

>>2958092

SEE? That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. What an excellent question. Just merely ASKING if it's possible to settle such a question with empirical methods...

(pic related. It's your average citizen.)

Have you ever considered that stastistical inference is extremely difficult in these cases, there being so many variables and causal relationships to take into consideration?

And are scientists supposed to be good at making value judgements?

PRESENTING:

Donald Duck who's here illustrating why this idea is not such a terrible one.

It's impossible to run a government without opinions and "Data-driven Legislation" is a meaningless term.

"Data" doesn't drive anything. Data can inform your opinions about a topic, but ultimately it's up to you with your opinions to choose to do something about whatever the data indicates. Science and data are non-imperative.

>>2958106

I think only bad scientists make value judgements! (that's a joke.)

But scientists are excellent at finding out what the value judgements of a society are without artificially crafting them first, as is the case with the world we live in now. Scientists also are good at finding out with what those value judgements correlate. Scientists even sometimes figure out why things happen, within certain degrees of certainty. And the biggest bonus of all is that scientists kick the ass of any religious prophet when it comes to prediction.

Yes there are many variables. Would you rather have people at the helm of your government holding on to one of them for dear life, claiming they fucking know and understand and are right, totalitarian-style or a bunch of lab coats standing around, scratching their heads and honestly admitting that they don't know all of what's going on, they can't yet see all of the relevant variables nor know their interactions, talking about how the problems are actually complex ones, encouraging people to hold on to their hats and not force them to enact legislation according to any single, unsubstantiated hypothesis.

nb4 grammar & spelling

>>2958130

Right. What I meant was "data-driven legislation instead of poorly-informed legislation." You clarify the point well, thank you.

But are you then also claiming that data cannot "drive" legislation but ignorance "can drive" legislation?

If so, I agree with you.

>>2958197
Everyone is ignorant, even people with data.

>>2958212

Yes, right, but you're exactly the kind of person I want legislating simply because you know this. Why is it so hard for me to communicate what seems to me to be a simple, self-explanatory concept. Is this really a terrible idea? Please, tell me if it is.

The Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics Party?

>>2958183
What scientists? Statisticians? Economists? Econometricians? Political scientists?
It is not a scientist's job, but those of policymakers, to make value judgements.

And very rarely do you have sufficient data on the entire population, rather than a sample of it. I am unable to comment on the other parts of your post because of it appears incoherent to me.

>>2958283
Yes. Sampling. Of course. Which is by its very nature not a 100% accurate thing but can also scrape quite close to 100% if done properly.
And yes, any "scientist." Statisticians? Economists? Econometricians? Why not? Also physicists, chemists, physicians, biologists, geologists, mathematicians, even some farmers. I don't know what the limit would be - what the cut of would be. It's a good question there. Who would employ scientific methods of investigation to inform the way they vote in governmental chambers and who would not.
Political scientists? I'd say less so. But also yes because they are at least educated about more than simply a beauty pageant.

Mostly I'm thinking along the lines of statisticians.

I'm not thinking about lawyers, bodybuilder / actors, former owners of baseball clubs, religious preachers, military servicemen (though not excluding all of them, because a great many are indeed excellent scientists).
Not Chuck Norris.

>>2958183

I think you're on the right track. Probably the most critical you can be at this point.

Technocracy always ends in murderous Hell. All we need is better education, both for citizens and especially for politicians. Some kind of Confucian-style examination system as a replacement for party politics.

>>2958021

Where do you get them from?

space <span class="math">l^2=X<span class="math">
and[/spoiler][/spoiler]

space <span class="math">(l^2) and[/spoiler]

space <span class="math"> l^2

and[/spoiler]