A Nation Ruled by Science Is a Terrible Idea
Neil deGrasse Tyson sent out a simple tweet:
Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence
And this writer from Slate got all snippy about the idea: “Tyson is a very smart man, but this is a very stupid tweet, and a very stupid idea.”
Because, sure, the best way to runs things is via chaos and superstition. That’s a winning solution.
In short, the author of the piece hearkens back to hacks like the Nazis and the Commies who claimed to have “scientific” forms of government. But they did not. Not in the “no true Scotsman” sense, but in the “complete distortion of what science actually means” sense. What the Nazis and the Commies and the Great Society and New Dealers did was to look at the problems they faced and asked their chosen experts what the solutions were, then said, “Ok, we’ll do that, those are the answers” and then tried to ram those solutions through, regardless. But what might *real* scientific governance be? Something I’ve been wanting for decades:
- All new laws must, like a scientific hypothesis, say not only what they are intended to achieve, but to also lay out predictions about what those laws will do. “This law will raise revenues, or lower crime, or fix the ozone hole or…”
- All new laws that are passed are then judged on their efficacy in fulfilling their predictions.
- Laws that do not live up to the original hypothesis *AUTOMATICALLY* and irrevocably sunset after a specified period. A supermajority vote is required to revive a law that has proven to be a failure.
Real science puts forward a hypothesis… then tests it. And if the facts don’t match the predictions, then the hypothesis is abandoned or adjusted to fit the facts.
But this is Slate, after all. And so the left wing war on science continues.
