Comments on: Can Science Rule?

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:19:06 +0000

"This is not merely an accident. In the private sector, failure often has natural and severe consequence for those who support or act on a bad idea. In government, failure often has no consequences except embarrassment for those who act on or support a bad idea."

Solveig: I think you are ignoring that this is the whole point of democracy and the free press: they work together to throw out those politicians who don't deliver.

Amartya Sen explores the dynamics of this in Development as Freedom....

EEE_EFF

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:19:06 +0000

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:19:06 +0000

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:44:59 +0000

Is Solveig really aware of the implications of what she is saying? She raises some very legitimate points about how science is being abused by special interests. She is also correct that the private sector is Darwinian - you can succeed or you can die by your performance. But, after reading her post it boils down to a biased opinion piece using the same use of selective logic that she is condemning to point out the deficiencies of "left" while conveniently overlooking the equally egregious behavior of the "right" in using junk science to promote their respective causes.

What is truly amazing, is that Solveig even brings up the concept of a society based on "Can Science Rule". I doubt that Solvieg or many Libertarians would ever agree to a science based society. Many of the free-market "freedoms" coveted by Libertarians would become highly regulated in the name of science.

For example, limiting the the right to choose actually makes for a more effective economic system. (In its February 2009 issue, the Scientific American had an article, "Detours by Design", or "how closing streets and removing traffic lights speed up urban travel" by Linda Baker.) Selecting one cell phone standard is scientifically better that having two competing standards. Open standards are better than closed standards for interoperability. And we could get rid of copyright and patents which slow down the ability of people to build on works of others. Oh!, forgot to mention enforced recycling.

Some people may respond, that what I am saying would deprive many companies of the freedom to innovate and would limit consumer choice. True, but I am talking about the efficiency of our entire economic system, not the ability of one company to make a profit. Competition is good, but it can be uneconomic from the view point of the entire economy. Each cell phone that is still usable, but now resides in a land fill is an unjustified waste. Purposely obsoleting a piece of hardware/software through DRM wastes resources.

Though Solvieg has raised the issue, I seriously doubt that Solvieg would support economic policies based on real science.

By: DB

DB — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:02:41 +0000

Interesting post. It made me think about a study published this month in the British Medical Journal showing that educational programs focused on teaching safe sex practices actually increased teen pregnancy compared to a control group:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul07_2...

I think it's easy to accuse policymakers of putting ideology ahead of science (and no doubt, this does occur), but more often than not, there are very reputable scientific studies to support both sides of a policy debate.

Science thrives on uncertainty, where scientists are free to question even the most accepted hypotheses. In contrast, policy often doesn't tolerate gray areas--the more black and white you can make it, the easier it is to make a finite decision. It's the finite nature of these decisions, based on interpretations of uncertain data, that can appear ideological.