Scientism – vs Anti-science in the US Govt Which Influences Canadian Conservatives
I saw a copy of the aims of Project 2025 out of the USA, which is a Republican document outlining their vision of what they want the US to look like. They’ve apparently been working on it since the time of Reagan. For people who want smaller govt, they can’t achieve that with their stated goals. And the costs will be ridiculous.
…..
What is the biggest problem?
…..
There is such a thing as scientism. Same as their is anti-science.
Most people are rational and scientists are intended to have open minds. Their aim is to explore the world, the universe, the human experience. And help us to control our environment.
Most fields have a philosophy, basically an abstract of definition so you know what they’re looking at.
You can look up what the study req’s are for a doctorate. What courses they’re meant to study and excel in. Where their knowledge comes from. How they gained it and how they shape it.
Just cuzz someone is smart doesn’t mean they know all about everything. They know what they’ve studied and that’s all. But they often get asked for more than their field tolerates.
Fields all have best practices and ethical principles. And they have a governing body and laws to be sure they stick to them. They also have schools of thought and publications that edit their discussions.
They have theorists they admire who have built their field. From when time began to now. The theorists and knowledge only extend to the knowledge of the time and people studied.
Most of what we consider to be known is from European culture. (Which may have been influenced by other lands.) Most of the money and support came from the Catholic Church. Most of the known leaders of the fields were men. That is the bias of many of our ‘experts’.
…..
Can we move beyond that and see a bigger picture?
…..
There are records to help our search. So yes, we could. We could follow the trails of other cultures’ knowledge. We could review their POVs and see how similar they are to ours. And analyse them to see if they hold up at least at par with Europe’s. So it’s not as European and becomes more global.
…..
Should scientists be monitored by the govt?
…..
Most people would agree that oversight is good. Laws should recognize ethical, best practice and make sure that science and technology don’t kill us all. But that doesn’t mean the govt should take over. With the laws in place, the governing bodies of the fields should be responsible for their own. That doesn’t preclude courts being used if they cannot come to an agreement though. But saying that the church or the state should still be rulers over the fields is overbearing. Minimum. The fields were built with the very theorists and religious values the USA says it has. So why do they need more than guidance now? And why by the govt?
The scientists have to live in the world they create and actually do know their fields. The govt doesn’t as a rule. Neither do lay people. They will therefore have limits. They aren’t out to kill us all. The only exception to that is weapons of war. Which the govt asks them for. So maybe the scientists should be overseeing the govt?
This doesn’t mean that every single scientist or theorist is ethical. They do have issues they have to work on: conflict of interest and bias are the biggest ones. And yes there are politics inside their fields too.
…..
But wouldn’t you rather someone who actually knows their stuff inside out determine what’s safe for us and what isn’t? I would.
mspeachierocks 