spiderwort@lemm.eeBanned to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml · 1 年前Should we replace democracy with science?message-squaremessage-square89linkfedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10
arrow-up10arrow-down1message-squareShould we replace democracy with science?spiderwort@lemm.eeBanned to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml · 1 年前message-square89linkfedilink
minus-squaresweng@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 年前How about the current system where we vote and do science?
minus-squarespiderwort@lemm.eeBannedOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 年前Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It’s just that the agenda isn’t precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.
minus-squareMelkath@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 年前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?
minus-squarespiderwort@lemm.eeBannedOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 年前Well first we would change beans into peas. The rest is trivial.
minus-squarespiderwort@lemm.eeBannedOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 年前99% of the voters wouldn’t know science if it bit them on the butt
minus-squaresweng@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 年前Sounds like a wildly unscientific statement, considering e.g ~10% of the US population works in STEM.
minus-squarespiderwort@lemm.eeBannedOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 年前That doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, strangely enough.
minus-squareZorque@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 年前I mean, trying to prove your own theory by being the perfect case study seems a little extreme…
How about the current system where we vote and do science?
Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It’s just that the agenda isn’t precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.
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?
Well first we would change beans into peas.
The rest is trivial.
99% of the voters wouldn’t know science if it bit them on the butt
Sounds like a wildly unscientific statement, considering e.g ~10% of the US population works in STEM.
That doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, strangely enough.
You make a good case for your own argument.
Well somebody’s got to.
I mean, trying to prove your own theory by being the perfect case study seems a little extreme…