• spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Two methods for determining policy.

      We vote.

      We do science.

      Should we switch to the latter?

        • spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It’s just that the agenda isn’t precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.

          • Melkath@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Science is an empirical method of finding fact.

            Government is a philosophical method of seeking truth.

            You are being pretty incoherent.

            How does science determine the order initiatives are addressed?

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Under representative democracy, policies are not defined by voting. Representatives are voted in, to make the decision. They supposed to make decisions based on facts (including scientific facts) and interests of the constituents. In order to do that, institutions are created, such is bureaucracy, executive branch, committees, etc., those will employ scientists as needed. But a policy can not be made just by scientists. Climatologists can not make policy about climate change, for example, because those should rely on many aspects, including economics, security, international relationships and even internal politics (different states have different needs).