In yesterday's tweet, I was critical of scientific institutions endorsing specific parties.
Here is an example of why.
There is no such thing as "the scientific party" or "the anti-scientific one" – not if by science we intend real science, rather than a politicized consensus.
Here is an example of why.
There is no such thing as "the scientific party" or "the anti-scientific one" – not if by science we intend real science, rather than a politicized consensus.
https://twitter.com/StuDoesAmerica/status/1316824136283496448
IMHO there's too much focus on who governs the political structure and too little attention to whether:
- The structure is good
- It provides good incentives
- It filters bad members
- The downside of bad decisions is capped
- It provides longevity to the common good or to itself
- The structure is good
- It provides good incentives
- It filters bad members
- The downside of bad decisions is capped
- It provides longevity to the common good or to itself
(I don't live in the US and this was not intended to be a reflection on the US; I merely stumbled on the quoted thread and it made me think. Many other countries will find that, if they remove the words and look at the actions, "scientific parties" aren't that scientific at all.)
Too often, "science-based decisions" are nothing more than pseudoscientific rationalizations of emotional decisions made by the constituency,
justified by scientifically explaining their direct short-term benefits and neglecting the indirect long-term costs.
justified by scientifically explaining their direct short-term benefits and neglecting the indirect long-term costs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
