Should Scientists/Engineers be our leaders?

[Evelisse]

oh...my....science

 

[Marvolo]

I don't have a problem with science. After all engineering is applied science.

The problem I have is society put scientists on a infallible pedestal, and most of which are academic credentialists. Science is one thing, "Scientists" is another matter. You don't have to be a Scientist to do or apply science. If modern science is so reliable, why aren't scientists held to the same (if not more) responsibility and accountability as engineers?

Society might put scientists on a pedestal but then again society is a bunch of idiots lol. Scientists are accountable and have responsibility. Its the nature of a good scientist to admit when they are wrong and adjust accordingly. If they refuse the peer review process will sort them out. Scientists are held to the same standards as any other human. They follow the same laws as the rest of us.

Now I do sympathize. Engineers do NOT get the attention they deserve. Tho I might seem biased I have a love for engineering. Always have and if I could I would love to specialize in both. Scientists do seem to get the celebrity treatment, but I wont begrudge them for it. I love how people like Neil deGrasse Tyson make science fun and interesting. I love that they are getting opportunities and trying to get young people interested. I wish that engineers got the same treatment. I really do. Like I said both fields benefit each other and always will. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean when I say scientists I mean those who pursue knowledge and truth. Not just the few celebrity scientists, but all who would pursue knowledge and truth. Those people and the people who put true knowledge to use will always be important to humanity

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'm actually not convinced you need Government though.

One truism Government constantly tries to sell is certain "-isms" produce better results in terms of inventing new technology, when in fact, access to information is about the only thing that is needed. Humans are naturally inquisitive, this isn't something brought about by the desire for money. Humans are born with a natural inclination to find out who they are. Racism, religion, celebrity worship, the desire for monetary compensation, that's all taught. So really I do think it's only a matter of time before technology outstrips the need Governance, or even an economy. Because once we see we're all human, and aren't being monopolized by the interests of the most dogmatic of our society, they won't be able to trick us into playing their games anymore, and we'll still be inventing things to change our society for the better.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Rather than a long winded first post I'll share my views shortly.

The basic question (with poll) is should our leaders be Scientists/Engineers be our leaders? This could apply to your particular country or you can apply the question Globally.

Margaret Thatcher, for example, was a Scientist before becoming a leader.

I do think that the people in charge of the science-related part of government should be scientifically knowledgable.

Look at America. The country's legislative science committee has people like Todd Akin and Paul "evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell" Broun on it.

In the year 2012.

 

[Thundercrack85]

At this point we need scientists to be our scientists.

 

[Schlosser85]

At this point we need scientists to be our scientists.

Deep.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm actually not convinced you need Government though.

One truism Government constantly tries to sell is certain "-isms" produce better results in terms of inventing new technology, when in fact, access to information is about the only thing that is needed. Humans are naturally inquisitive, this isn't something brought about by the desire for money. Humans are born with a natural inclination to find out who they are. Racism, religion, celebrity worship, the desire for monetary compensation, that's all taught. So really I do think it's only a matter of time before technology outstrips the need Governance, or even an economy. Because once we see we're all human, and aren't being monopolized by the interests of the most dogmatic of our society, they won't be able to trick us into playing their games anymore, and we'll still be inventing things to change our society for the better.

I meant economy in a broad sense of trade. Not necessarily our current model. I agree that i think money of all kinds will eventually be phased out. The idea of working and being paid will most likely be phased out as well. Government is going to be needed until humans stop ****ing over each other and trying to make a profit from every situation. That is a long ways off. Right now we need someone to tell Party A they cant wrongly take advantage of Party B. It'd be nice if society could just enforce this without a central body doing it but we arent there yet. For the forseeable future there will be a group of people telling other people what to do.

 

[Schlosser85]

Is your avatar a ring-wraith?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Is your avatar a ring-wraith?

Dude, you gotta watch Game of Thrones.

 

[Marvolo]

Is your avatar a ring-wraith?

Mine? Nah its a Whitewalker from Game of Thrones.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Best show ever.

No, seriously, it might be.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I meant economy in a broad sense of trade. Not necessarily our current model. I agree that i think money of all kinds will eventually be phased out. The idea of working and being paid will most likely be phased out as well. Government is going to needed until humans stop ****ing over each other and trying to make a profit from every situation. That is a long ways off.

Well if no money exist there is no such thing as profit.

The big difference between money and labor is money can be made without labor.

I just released my Trust Fund to buy a house. Do you realize how much **** I bought? And dude, girls are all over me while I'm buying this house. But that's what money does (and I'm not tooting my own horn, I'm just saying money changes people). I can point to others. My roommate started smoking crack when he got desperate for money. That's kind of the opposite direction.

That's the key difference between resource based societies. No money to pervert the natural desire to survive. The tools, the Internet being a large one are here.

Actually it's very interesting how Science, which is often at odds with the Bible, is now touting a very Jesus like notion of "we're all in this together and we don't need large scale institutions. I really don't think humans "naturally f*** with each other".

Some of that Astrology Eons makes strange sense to me. I'm sure it's poopy but the notion of humans having some sense of their ultimate evolution makes a certain bit of sense to me. Futurism has mass appeal, to everyone really.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You know, I make a lot of fun of creationists, but the fact of the matter is that most humans are creationists. So... there, science is clearly failing. In a lot of countries, it's still (practically, or literally) illegal to teach evolution.

A poll not too long ago found that a third of Russians believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now... I don't know if they take some issue with the Copernican model, or if school standards have really gone down since the collapse of the USSR, but someone isn't doing their job in the science department.

Science really needs to work on this, and scientists can't do it all on their own.

 

[Marvolo]

Well if no money exist there is no such thing as profit.

The big difference between money and labor is money can be made without labor.

I just released my Trust Fund to buy a house. Do you realize how much **** I bought? And dude, girls are all over me while I'm buying this house. But that's what money does (and I'm not tooting my own horn, I'm just saying money changes people). I can point to others. My roommate started smoking crack when he got desperate for money. That's kind of the opposite direction.

That's the key difference between resource based societies. No money to pervert the natural desire to survive. The tools, the Internet being a large one are here.

Actually it's very interesting how Science, which is often at odds with the Bible, is now touting a very Jesus like notion of "we're all in this together and we don't need large scale institutions. I really don't think humans "naturally f*** with each other".

Some of that Astrology Eons makes strange sense to me. I'm sure it's poopy but the notion of humans having some sense of their ultimate evolution makes a certain bit of sense to me. Futurism has mass appeal, to everyone really.

Even without money its possible to profit. Take money away someone will find something to build up in mass quantity or something that is worth more than something else. You'd need to remove the notion that one thing is more valuable than another thing. Im not inclined to believe humans naturally **** each other over any more than any other species. Problem is with our increased intelligence, social skills, and command of resources we have found many many more ways and reasons to **** each other over.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I don't have a problem with science. After all engineering is applied science.

The problem I have is society put scientists on a infallible pedestal, and most of which are academic credentialists. Science is one thing, "Scientists" is another matter. You don't have to be a Scientist to do or apply science. If modern science is so reliable, why aren't scientists held to the same (if not more) responsibility and accountability as engineers?

How do you propose we go about doing that, and to what end?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Engineers contribute more and have done more for society.

Care to elaborate? I ask only because I think you're about to dig yourself a massive hole.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Even without money its possible to profit. Take money away someone will find something to build up in mass quantity or something that is worth more than something else. You'd need to remove the notion that one thing is more valuable than another thing. Im not inclined to believe humans naturally **** each other over any more than any other species. Problem is with our increased intelligence, social skills, and command of resources we have found many many more ways and reasons to **** each other over.

No one is born with the notion that one thing is more valued than another. That's all learned through money.

 

[Doctor Evo]

No one is born with the notion that one thing is more valued than another. That's all learned through money.

I agree that it's learned, but I don't agree that money is necessary to develop a sense of value. Trade doesn't require standardized currency, for example.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The thing about money is that it's imaginary (even more so now since we've gone off the gold standard). But 99% of what we believe / value is imaginary, so it works, in that sense.

Though the aliens watching us must think we're nuts.

 

[The Question]

They're completely different skill sets. Scientists are trained and educated to know a lot about particular subjects and do research. Engineers are educated and trained to know a lot about particular subjects and build things. There's no inherent crossover of skills there. Are they usually rational, logical, critical thinking people? Yes, but that doesn't automatically make you a good leader. Leadership, in a political arena, requires negotiation, being able to read people and deal withe people and manipulate people, being able to make difficult ethical decisions during crisis situations, an understanding of the law, economics, the military, and sociology, and all in all a bunch of stuff that being a scientist, in of itself, doesn't prepare you for.

Of course scientists could be and have been effective leaders, because they had the skills necessary to do the job, and their scientific background did give them skills that were useful to them in their positions of leadership. But the notion that being a scientist, in of itself, makes one qualified to lead is a completely foolish notion.

Scientists should do what they are trained to do, which is be scientists. If there's any crossover that's wonderful.

No one is born with the notion that one thing is more valued than another. That's all learned through money.

So the only reason you value the life of your close friend over the life of the neighbor you've never spoken to is because money exists. That makes total sense.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Material value. Not life. Technically in a monetary system life has value in the form of wealth. If you think of that in terms of who we tend to kill it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I agree that it's learned, but I don't agree that money is necessary to develop a sense of value. Trade doesn't require standardized currency, for example.

I don't entirely understand the Resourced based approach. They said there would be no crime but the Nazis said there'd be no crime.

The thing about money is that it's imaginary (even more so now since we've gone off the gold standard). But 99% of what we believe / value is imaginary, so it works, in that sense.

Though the aliens watching us must think we're nuts.

I will say this. There's nothing that scientific prohibits Aliens at least. In fact they seem a certainty. Also, Evolution may indeed mean that in order to reach are intelligence they'd have to look very humanoid no matter what.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I don't entirely understand the Resourced based approach. They said there would be no crime but the Nazis said there'd be no crime.

Am I the only one having trouble interpreting this post? ^

Also, Evolution may indeed mean that in order to reach are intelligence they'd have to look very humanoid no matter what.

Evolution "means" no such thing, though now we're getting off topic...

 

[Thundercrack85]

Convergent evolution, perhaps. The idea is that the humanoid form is the best (or at least most commonly evolved) form of organism capable of space travel.

I.e. a creature with hooves can't build a spaceship.

Though something with tentacles could work too. But we know the humanoid form developed on Earth, so it's going to develop elsewhere under similar conditions.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Convergent evolution, perhaps. The idea is that the humanoid form is the best (or at least most commonly evolved) form of organism capable of space travel.

I.e. a creature with hooves can't build a spaceship.

Though something with tentacles could work too. But we know the humanoid form developed on Earth, so it's going to develop elsewhere under similar conditions.

I've already explained why this is faulty reasoning in another thread. It amounts to baseless supposition.