That's ... an idea I'd never considered. How would such a State make practical decisions? For example, rules for food safety? Could it still regulate the money supply without economics?
Why? I'd like to see a more scientifically-minded State.
It's useful to remember that science is a social construction, and thus that there is no definitive science, but rather a collage of emotions and opinions about scientific endeavors. Thus, we cannot actually marry science to the State; the closest we can come is to choose representatives who are scientific.
I like the concept, but the separation of church and state is only nominal in the first place. Barriers that obstruct one aspect of culture from influencing other aspects are good, but these aspects are ultimately part of the same whole.
I'm not sure I understand what this means. Most policy prescriptions rely on empirical research and hypothesis testing. Government is applied social science.
Actually science does have something to add to discussions like that. In the case of social security, a quick Google scholar search led me to this: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9183.pdf
Science can help us figure out how our decisions will affect society. What society optimizes for is up for political discourse.
I only read the abstract but that paper seemed to be answering the questions about the age people retire at and what benefits the accrue.
That's informative about the trade offs - should we take money from X and give it to Y - but it says nothing about if we want to give it to Y. Maybe we all like X and if it's a penny for Y to have a holiday we'd still say "Screw Y." Maybe we despise X and will take the last penny of X to give to Y for no obvious benefit.
That paper can in some way help people make an informed decision but we live in a finite world and it doesn't, shouldn't and can't tell them how to make the trade offs.
> That paper can in some way help people make an informed decision but we live in a finite world and it doesn't, shouldn't and can't tell them how to make the trade offs.
^ Your comment sounds very much like my own (below), so I don't know what the disagreement is.
> Science can help us figure out how our decisions will affect society. What society optimizes for is up for political discourse.
I like what the FAA does: they separate fact-finding from policy-making after an aviation accident.
The fact-finding folks make no recommendations on policy. All they do is find the cause of the incident.
Only after they are done do a completely separate group of people address how the problem could be fixed.
In your proposal, scientists would be the fact-finders, and politicians would be the policy-makers.