Really? Maybe science tells you that there is a 50% chance of getting 75% more resources and a 50% chance of getting wiped out. Maybe science tells you that the cost of the war is going to wipe out most of the gains, even if you win. Maybe science tells you that tribe C over there will take both of you over if you and tribe B weaken yourselves.
Wars seldom begin rationally - they begin either through hatred or by minimizing the downside. Look at Iraq. We won, w were sure to win, but it sure cost a lot more than the nitwits predicted.
Good thing you got “reason” and “rationality” to go with that science, or so that’s the thread title.
Irrelevant. As I mentioned, we start with shared principles.
The ethics class I took in college examined how people came up with ethical systems by reason and by starting from a set of principles. It isn’t math, since you get different answers depending on how you weight different factors, but it is a far cry from godsezit which seems to be where Shodan is coming from.
Sure. Different sciences are going to tell us different things. If I’m a disinterested, observing anthropologist, I will see H. sapiens as it exists “in the wild”. That’s the way we behave. Sure, we have many traditionally “good” qualities like helping our fellow tribemates and even generosity to strangers under certain conditions. But ultimately we fight for Our Tribe against The Other Tribes. Why would I care what happens to The Other Tribe unless it helps My Tribe in some way?
If I’m a behavioral psychologist, I will probably employ a “tit for tat” strategy under most circumstances.
If I’m an earth scientist, I definitely am going to want to manage this crazy species called H. sapiens before it gets out of control!!
<claps> 
“Scientific methodology, reason, and rationality”; there’s all sorts of good, rational reasons to do so. Such as discouraging your own death at the hands of your victims, or your own death under the ruthless system you’ve created.
This idea that “science, reason, and rationality are all intrinsically ruthless and evil” is primarily an attempt to demonize them by those who are threatened by such things.
You are forgetting logic and rationality, Science in and of itself is the method by which we learn about the world around us. What we do with that knowledge is something else entirely. Using logical thinking and Rationality to guide the decision making process would seem to me a huge step up from the current method.
So what’s better?
-
That scientists of differing fields get together and talk about their findings and integrate them such as to maximize well being?
-
That we follow the morals of the Bible and kill homosexuals and stubborn children?
-
That we remain paralyzed with indecision?
My guess is your anthropologist might like to learn something about reciprocal altruism, tit for tat and live and let live, and probably knew that already, and your earth science guy could help them both manage resources.
Why would they want to maximize well being? What scientific principle tells us to do that?
You can just ask people. Pretty much they’ll all tell so. That’s reasonable and rational. If you think you have a more reasonable and rational guiding principle I’m all ears.
And the reason that our culture has been advancing is that we see our tribe as larger and larger segments of humanity.
The drives that make you save your cousin’s son from death, are still there. It started when we lived in family bands. But the impulses have followed us from the nomadic life, to hamlets, to cities, to nations. Now your tribe, for most, is the Western World. In a generation or two, if we’re lucky, it will be all humanity.
Besides, reason and rationality have plenty to say on why you shouldn’t shit on your neighbor.
While I do agree that determining what is the ultimate rational goal is something reasonable people can disagree about, it is easy to determine the paths and values that rely on non-rational thinking and should be discarded out of hand.
Examples of non-rational thinking:
The bible said it. I believe it
If you don’t have (my) faith, you don’t have good morals
Global warming denial
Sexual ignorance is the best way raise children/women and the poor should be punished for having sex
People that look/sound/believe different are bad
Astrology as a determining factor in decision making
There does come a point where reasonable, rational people can disagree, but the ideas listed above are irrational on their face. Where would this country/world be if we could eliminate these impediments to clear thought?
I disagree with the idea that the only way to have a reason based governance is to have an authoritarian form of government. I see the arguments against a reason based governance as the perfect being the enemy of the good. There is no reason to think that the only 2 options are rule by authoritarian Vulcan logic and a blindly selfish democratic theocracy.
I think everyone but you is talking about scientific methodology, not particular sciences.
A computer scientist would run 100,000 Monte Carlo simulations of simulated battles and decide based on that. Yes, I can post things as absurd as you.
Game theory. OK, as sciences go it’s not one of the hardest ones, but still :).
Besides, more well-being in society likely translates to more science grants as fewer social resources must be expended to mitigate the noxious effects of unwell being among citizens. Tenure survival instinct.
Nothing in game theory would dictate that you maximize well being…merely that you find an optimal level of well being that balances societies needs, resources and goals. But these would all be without emotion or feelings, per the OP, so would simply be cold calculations. Sort of like the calculations Ford made wrt the Pinto…do we pay a lot to recall this obvious defect, or do we simply allocate money to pay the law suits? Well, emotionally, you recall to save lives, but from a cost to benefits perspective you just allocate money for the law suits. Same will go for everything.
People in this thread, IMHO, are projecting their obvious admiration for the scientific method (which I also hold btw) along with their emotional desires and wishes and their own utopian vision of how they think things should be (and their coupling those two things together as if they are one and the same). To me, this is completely incorrect. You need the human element injected or the system would be monstrous. I’m not saying you need some God/gods based morality handed down from On High™, but the OP says that we are to remove feelings from the equation and do things based strictly on cold hard calculation, logic and science. Well, much of what we as a society do wrt humanities (all that lefty stuff) ARE based on empathy, feelings and the human connection we have. Most of the social programs we have fit that bill. On the righty side, things like gun ownership and rights would fall into this same category. WHY do we have a right to keep and bear arms? Doesn’t make sense from a purely pragmatic perspective, and based on cold logic and scientific calculation we probably wouldn’t. Based on that same logic, why would we have true universal health care? We don’t have the resources to really treat everyone, so cold calculation is going to mean we treat those who either offer the best return to society or have the greatest chance to benefit from the care.
Myself, I think that such a system would be almost as bad as the systems that used to be based purely on feelings and faith…maybe worst. What really works is a balance that includes science, logic as well as the human element. It might not be the most efficient, but I think it is the most workable. Clearly it is, since it’s the one that every successful government on the planet uses.
Emotions are part of well being. Being rational doesn’t mean being emotionless. It means not doing stupid things for emotion’s sake. #YOLO
You like paintings of horses? Cool. No one is going to stop you from hanging them up in rational world.
I was going to respond with much the same to include things like personal freedom and self expression to go along with the above emotions.
To be scientific about it one might research whether or not given limitations of the above increased or decreased peoples feelings of well being.
Then one of us is misreading the OP, since the OP specifically says ‘instead of government by “the Feelies”’, which to me means pure logic and without feelings or emotions. Many of the laws and programs we have are based on feelings and emotion IMHO, and without them I don’t think either lefties or righties would be too happy with how things would work.
As I said, doing stupid things for purely emotional reasons is bad. Doing trivial things for purely emotional things isn’t irrational.
Keeping women from having HPV vaccine because you think only sluts need it is evil and based in irrational emotion. Having a music program because the arts enrich life is perfectly rational.
The former is “the Feelies,” the latter is perfectly rational.
I think that it’s more that science, reason, and rationality are all intrinsically amoral. Science and reason are ways to accomplish your goals, but you need some moral code to tell you what your goals are in the first place. This doesn’t have to be a religious code; there are plenty of secular moralities out there. But you need to define the good. And that could be the greatest happiness for the greatest number. That could be the greatest happiness for me. That could be “living up to the code of behavior my deity commands me to.” It could be whatever. It could even be, “Making sure that only people who look like me or speak my language survive.”
I think one of the biggest conceptual failings that people suffer from is treating emotion and reason as mutually opposed things. This duality is really old, but we’re learning now that it isn’t correct. There have been studies that show that people with low emotional sensitivity…people who don’t tend to experience emotions, are terrible decision makers. They lack the emotional ability to actually make decisions, even though they can point out the positives and negatives behind each choice.
And as I’ve said, I disagree that all the assessments based on pure logic or reason without emotion are going to work out the way you think they will. Perhaps producing HPV vaccine isn’t necessary from a pure cost to benefit ratio (just an example), so none would be made…or maybe only made for people in certain risk groups or for the greatest benefit to society.
As for music, why is it rational to have a program for it? What about that makes it ‘rational’ in your opinion? I mean, I agree, having music programs are great, and we should do them…but that’s my emotional response. In our society, we can afford to have such things for purely emotional reasons, even if the cost to benefit ratio isn’t there. But from pure logic? What about it do you think makes it rational to have such a program when, say, society could spend those resources focusing on math and science, or teaching other skills or learning that we aren’t now focused on? It’s all about resources and resource management from a purely logical, practical and unemotional level, and if looked at from that perspective I seriously doubt music programs would be high on the list above other, more practical and applicable programs. Same goes for a lot of things that we, as a society do for emotional reasons.