How about we look at a real world example? Albert Einstein was arguably the greatest scientist of the 20th century. That he was a brilliant physicist is beyond doubt, however, as to his views on other matters…read his article “Why Socialism?”, from which I quote:
I leave it as an excercise for the reader to determine what a government run by Einstein would have looked like.
Phlosphr - intelligence, acumen? I would agree with that assessment. But in your OP you mentioned the “acquisition of truth and knowledge”. In another post you list the following qualities: “scientifically minded, unreserved, honest, and sincere”.
I would say that a certain amount of duplicity would be helpful in a government leader. E.g. if planning a war against an enemy nation, if you could convincingly present to the enemy a peaceful front, it would be beneficial to lull them into a false sense of security.
Scientifically minded? If by that you mean “someone who tries a logical approach to each solution”, I would respond that sometimes you have to forgo logic and settle on what is achievable. (Ever notice how on the original Star Trek Captain Kirk always solved the problem and left Mr. Spock shaking his head dubiously? 
) It might be logical, for example, to encourage mass transport for greater efficiency in transportation resources, and to diminish the changes of injury in personal travel. Does this mean that the legislature will automatically approve your plan to highly tax single-vehicle use?
Is scientific knowledge the most useful knowledge for a head of government to have? In a country such as the USA, where a great part of the president’s tasks are to propose legislation and deal with other heads of state, one might argue that legislative and/or diplomatic experience is more important, with scientists serving as the “advisory board”.
Damn, I didn’t even know he could spell “Hertzprung-Russell Diagram.”
Weird_Al_Einstein: is your argument that “Albert Einstein proposed a socialist economy; therefore he would have been an incompetent head of state?”
If so, I’m not convinced by your point of view.
Einstein saw potential problems with socialism:
“The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?”
Hey, I am a bureaucrat and I want some power as well. 
Anyway, for me the only real solution is an activist government by all people affected by it. The several corporate industries are highly criticized for their more than successful advocacy in the political realm, but those who are to fight against them seem highly unwilling to learn from thier tactics, and do the same.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Beeblebrox *
**
Yep, that’s the one. Thanks.
Oh, that’s easy–it would be just like my house . . .
. . . after all, my wife is good and smart. 
I’ve weighed in on this one before. It isn’t just a matter of tactics; it’s a matter of money, incentives, and a difference in fundamental nature:
It should be noted that, when Chaim Weizmann died in 1952, Einstein was offered the post of president (head of state, not head of government) of Israel. He declined it; possibly, he was brilliant enough to recognize his limitations.
Actually, Einstein was embarrassed. He was embarrassed because it was hard for him to refuse without causing offence. We could argue he was a scientist not a politician, but I don’t think that would be beneficial to this debate.
If the leaders of the nations were ‘thinkers’ consonant to Einstein. I envison a drastically different world.
Quick Hijack, Would anyone ever conceive Einstein as corruptable?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Phlosphr *
**
How can you hijack a thread you started? Anyway, Einstein didn’t buy into the theory that the Universe was expanding, so he added a constant to all his equations to make them come out the way he wanted to. Later, he admitted that this was a mistake and he called it the greatest blunder of his career. He had allowed his own hubris to affect his judgement. Sometimes, one’s own ego is all that is necessary for corruption. I am not that Einstein was corrupt, mind you, I am just saying that he could have been corrupted if he had a different station in life.
Arnold is right about a certain amount of duplicity being necessary in our leaders. Without it, it would be easier for a rival nation to do us great harm as we Polly Anna’d about. Machiavelli’s Prince will stab Plato’s Philosopher King and seize the throne for himself everytime.
But what if ALL leaders were noble and trustworthy? Well, that would be nice, but I ain’t gonna bet on the population being equally virtuous. The evils would be confined to a smaller scale, true, but they may become more viscious. Energy that would be spent fuming on something like “Gee I hate those Chinese, how dare they hold on to our plane like that” and never acted on, may be channeled to “Bob never did return my hedge clippers. It’s been three days! I am going to go over right now and take 'em…And then I’m gonna ram 'em up his ass!”
Never underestimate the ability of humans to be inhumane.
-Beeblebrox
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Philosphr, it’s the position that corrupts someone. I don’t care who you put into office, scientist or otherwise… the person will become corrupt due to the nature of the work involved. Politics is a smarmy business; to succeed in office or mearly survive, you’ve got to be corrupt.
Problem is, the cosmological constant is right.
It was unnecessary, but mathematically conisitent with the rest of general relativity, and it explained the observations of the time. Einstein didn’t believe that the Universe was expanding because there was no data to show that it was. This was before Hubble! If he’d published GR without the constant, people would have said, “But, your theory predicts that everything’s flying apart! That’s ridiculous!” He’d have been proven right a few years down the pike, of course, but who could know that in advance?
Nowadays, the cosmological constant is an integral part of modern cosmological theory, a little tweak on top of the cosmological expansion.
Einstein never accepted quantuum mechanics, though, so that might be a better example of his human weakness.
UH HUH! I understand humans have the capapbility to be inhumane, grossly inhumane even. I also understand that Machiavelli who lived in the 16th century may have been the father of modern day Western Political Science. However, In Machiavelli’s The Prince he states:
“The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states.”
Wow, no wonder some leaders are hell bent on war. I am not saying Machiavelli was not a wise man, he was a genious and philosopher, but exercising my own duplicity. Comparing Plato who lived in the late 420’s->late 340’s B.C and Machiavelli is a little blurred, both of them proposed different dictums on governess. Plato was interested in creating a thought pattern of social/inner harmony. Antipode to Machiavelli as evidenced by the above quote.
We can safely say IMHO that having a Leader who displays, both tact, and poise in their decisions, as well as profitable logic on globle commerse, would be a great asset to any nation. But instead we mainly get marrionette’s, manipulated by skilled cabinets and advisors…
Mmmmm…I wasn’t really making an argument, exactly, just bringing in some information I thought would be relevant to this discussion. However, I do think Albert Einstein’s advocacy of socialism provides us with some valuable insight into what kind of head of state he would have made, notwithstanding the fact that, according to capacitor, he did see some problems with it.
I don’t think the position corrupts the person. Acco40.
I do think humans are quite corruptable. Even susceptible to corruption, I not saying completely unresistant, but close in some cases. Especially, with some positions. It is hard to fathom, or accept I should say, that government is run on a certain amount of corruption…
To be President you need to learn how to make deals, persuade people to vote for you and sometimes lie.
I think a scientist would find this hard, they don’t always tell the truth but they tend to want to stay ‘according to the data’ etc…
Truth is, in a democracy, its all about getting the votes and making deals with different interest groups.
As I once said to someone ( recently ) who was complaining about our Tony Blair in England, 'he is VERY good at getting elected you know '.
I thought that under the American system a President couldn’t actually do that much without consent from the senate and congress.
Am i wrong about this ?
Why not blame these people for the woes.
And he refused it because…?
(I have heard two theories on this. One is that he did view himself principally as a theoretical physicist, and he felt that official duties as president of Israel would have detracted from his searching for answers to open questions. The other is that he recognized that as president of Israel he would have to accept decisions of the Israeli government that would violate his pacifist principles. I do not have evidence that suggests which theory, if either, is correct).
It would be neat to have a President who could calculate the area of the Oval Office…
And as far as non-corruptibility of scientists goes, offer me a million dollars and see what I’ll do for you!