| > as politicians, they will factor in a lot more than just the hard science on a topic Are we really going to allow ourselves to slide into such naivete, especially after we have suffered through a year-long global orgy of corruption and violence at the hands of these same politicians? I wonder what science the Biden administration used to determine it really should sell all those weapons to the UAE. [0] What was the science behind the West's decision - also led by Biden - to continue bombing civilian infrastructure in Yemen? [1] Politicians use science as a rallying cry, not as an actual philosophical fundamental. We would be a lot better off if they even tried to practice people-ruling while utilizing the "hard science," but we must all come to the realization that they are simply science-adjacent. None of the ghouls in elected office - in any country on the planet - have any idea how to incorporate "science," into the act of ruling over others. But perhaps the more important question is: why should we even value such an incorporation, if it were valid? Scientists study the natural world, observe it, and document it for others to observe on their own. Politicians - if we were to be very charitable - move other peoples' money around & redistribute it. There is only a small overlap in these concentric circles and it's probably too large as it is. The mandate of the politician is largely illogical, and for this reason trying to conflate it with science is not just sophomoric and ridiculous - it's incredibly dangerous. [0] https://news.antiwar.com/2021/04/13/biden-to-proceed-with-tr... [1] https://yemendataproject.org/ |