# What difference would it make if Scientific methodology, reason, and rationality ruled the world? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263 "2013-10-03T13:50:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/41 "2013-10-03T18:20:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve worked in places that are run by science-based methods. There is no shortage of disagreement, but all parties know they have to produce evidence. > > I’d hope that morality would be based around agreed on goals and actions that can be demonstrated to reach them. If our goal is to reduce teenage pregnancies (which I think we can defend rationally) and access to birth control and sex education does this, we might ignore whines about how it is wrong to “enable” kids to have sex - when the goal is pregnancy reduction, not sex reduction. We’d also be looking for ways to reduce single parenthood, too, since that seems to be the biggest cause of poverty. And we’d probably be looking for ways to reduce the overall population, or slow its growth. I’m certain we’d have some form of eugenics in place. As noted above, science doesn’t give us morality. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/42 "2013-10-03T18:24:39Z")
I worry what happens when two opposed, perfectly rational goals are proposed. Also, being a deeply selfish and lazy person myself, I recognize that many rational persons will oppose any measures which reduce their personal comfort or that of their children. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/43 "2013-10-03T18:29:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We’d also be looking for ways to reduce single parenthood, too, since that seems to be the biggest cause of poverty. And we’d probably be looking for ways to reduce the overall population, or slow its growth. I’m certain we’d have some form of eugenics in place. > > As noted above, science doesn’t give us morality. To the extent we have a natural morality, it’s the result of us being communal monkeys. I suggest, that we can use logic to establish a morality based on minimizing human suffering. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/44 "2013-10-03T18:29:55Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I worry what happens when two opposed, perfectly rational goals are proposed. Also, being a deeply selfish and lazy person myself, I recognize that many rational persons will oppose any measures which reduce their personal comfort or that of their children. Additionally, who will have the time to research the two goals to the same extent as their proponents? At some point, you’d have to make a judgement call as to which proponents you like better or which seem more trustworthy, or other arbitrary criteria. And even then, the great inescapable unknown is the future itself. Random events might make Choice A turn out to be better than Choice B, or vice-versa. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/45 "2013-10-03T18:30:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > To the extent we have a natural morality, it’s the result of us being communal monkeys. > > I suggest, that we can use logic to establish a morality based on minimizing human suffering. Why is minimizing human suffering the ultimate good? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/46 "2013-10-03T18:37:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why is minimizing human suffering the ultimate good? It’ll do in the short term, until we find a gooder good. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/47 "2013-10-03T18:38:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why is minimizing human suffering the ultimate good? Establishing a moral system, whether God-based or not, requires certain shared assumptions. If it’s God-based, the assumptions are something like “this book says what God wants us to do”; if it’s not God-based, it’s something like “human suffering is bad, human happiness is good”. So, in this case, we’d have to share the belief and the assumption that human suffering is bad, and one of the goals of our moral system should be to minimize it. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/48 "2013-10-03T18:40:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why is minimizing human suffering the ultimate good? How about improving well being? [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/sTKf5cCm-9g/maxresdefault.jpg "CFI-NYC | Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g) If not that, what’s better? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/49 "2013-10-03T18:45:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Establishing a moral system, whether God-based or not, requires certain shared assumptions. If it’s God-based, the assumptions are something like “this book says what God wants us to do”; if it’s not God-based, it’s something like “human suffering is bad, human happiness is good”. So, in this case, we’d have to share the belief and the assumption that human suffering is bad, and one of the goals of our moral system should be to minimize it. Perhaps I should have been clearer. Why is “minimizing human suffering” what science tells us our morality should be based on? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/50 "2013-10-03T18:48:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Perhaps I should have been clearer. > > Why is “minimizing human suffering” what science tells us our morality should be based on? You’re probably not just asking me, but I’d say science is the best method to accomplish a goal- whether the goal is “minimize human suffering” or “atomize humans into stuffing”. As to what the goals should be- I think we’d have to turn to other disciplines, which would start, in any case, with certain shared assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/51 "2013-10-03T18:51:42Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > How about improving well being? > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g) > > If not that, what’s better? I don’t know. Maximizing resource distribution, minimizing environmental impact, increasing human numbers to have more people to share ideas with, decreasing population to restore the natural world to a natural balance, allocate resources to achieve a permanent presence in space, or train people to live as healthy hunter-gatherers again as we did for 20,000 years? If we are looking to the greatest good for the greatest number, should the “good” or the “number” be the dominant goal? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/52 "2013-10-03T18:55:27Z")
Science tells me I should fight for My Tribe, and if that means killing the next tribe over, so be it. We should be trying to maximize resources for My Tribe. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/53 "2013-10-03T18:58:05Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Scientific methodology, reason, and rationality are, by no stretch, a sufficient set of intellectual tools for “ruling the world”, and in many circumstances, trying to get by with them alone would be disastrous. I’d think the most effective totalitarian state would be crafted via empirical inquiry into human psychology. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/54 "2013-10-03T18:59:57Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I don’t know. Maximizing resource distribution, minimizing environmental impact, increasing human numbers to have more people to share ideas with, decreasing population to restore the natural world to a natural balance, allocate resources to achieve a permanent presence in space, or train people to live as healthy hunter-gatherers again as we did for 20,000 years? Those all sound like means to the end (or not) of increasing well being. You can use reason, science and rationality to help you decide. > [@](#): > > If we are looking to the greatest good for the greatest number, should the “good” or the “number” be the dominant goal? Reason suggests to me that if you just try and increase the number, you will run out of resources and end up lessening well being for a greater number. Maybe we could do some science on that to see if that reasoning is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/55 "2013-10-03T19:00:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Science tells me I should fight for My Tribe, and if that means killing the next tribe over, so be it. We should be trying to maximize resources for My Tribe. Did science tell you why your tribe is better than the next tribe? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/56 "2013-10-03T19:03:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Did science tell you why your tribe is better than the next tribe? “Science” makes no such value judgements as to who is “better,” all things being equal I need to ensure that my Tribe endures to perpetuate my genes. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/57 "2013-10-03T19:08:55Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > “Science” makes no such value judgements as to who is “better,” all things being equal I need to ensure that my Tribe endures to perpetuate my genes. Science tells you that a larger tribe could be beneficial in warding off attackers. Besides, aren’t there usually religious reasons tribes use to disassociate from other tribes? Something along the lines of “we are The People-they are animals”? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/58 "2013-10-03T19:24:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We’d also be looking for ways to reduce single parenthood, too, since that seems to be the biggest cause of poverty. And we’d probably be looking for ways to reduce the overall population, or slow its growth. I’m certain we’d have some form of eugenics in place. > > As noted above, science doesn’t give us morality. I agree about single parenthood - though more support for single parents might work also. We’d have to look at the evidence. Not about eugenics or forced birth control. The evidence shows that increasing the standard of living decreases birth rates. Since a rational case can be made for control of one’s body (which enforced birth control does not support) economics seems a better way of going about this. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/59 "2013-10-03T19:30:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And even then, the great inescapable unknown is the future itself. Random events might make Choice A turn out to be better than Choice B, or vice-versa. Even companies with rational decision making processes screw the pooch sometimes. It would be totally irrational to claim that any system will always produce the right answer. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263/60 "2013-10-03T19:37:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not about eugenics or forced birth control. The evidence shows that increasing the standard of living decreases birth rates. Since a rational case can be made for control of one’s body (which enforced birth control does not support) economics seems a better way of going about this. Which method is more efficient? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-difference-would-it-make-if-scientific-methodology-reason-and-rationality-ruled-the-world/670263.md?page=4)