Could you run your country better?

[Treblaine]

How do you falsify a scientific Theory of Economy without destroying an economy? How do you even verify it, an economy that isn't even a closed system!

You can't make a lab-rat economy, there is no human analogue. Computers can't do it either, they are not advanced enough to emulate human decision making, especially not on a vast scale. Everything is unproven theories till they are actually applied and applied on a scale that affects millions!

And yes, I know science is supposed to be about falsification and verification but irrational elites are VERY good at rationalising reasons to ignore or silence those who cast doubt on their ideas. ESPECIALLY when the ideas are already in practice, that's the problem with trying to run a country with science, the system is just so complex and unpredictable: chaotic that science cannot tell you what to do.

If you actually follow the true scientific standard of proof and falsification you can't actually use science to run countries. Only have it as an aide in certain circumstances.

The best we can do at the moment accountability and vigilance, so many unpredictable individuals wielding so much power (money), the best we can do is patch things as they go along and rebuild it when it crashes. You can't control it, you can't let it run wild.

Science has it's applications, but it is not the be-all and end-all.

You mistake those irrational elites for scientists. They aren't scientists.

How do you falsify an economic theory? Easy.

An economic theory needs to make predictions. You don't have to do anything to the system. You don't have to use any lab-rats. You merely need data.

Your economic theory will predict a pattern. If your data shows the same pattern then your theory holds, for now. If it shows a different pattern then your theory needs work.

You keep collecting data. You keep working on that theory. You keep checking your theory.

That's all the scientific method is. The creation, verification and falsification of scientific theories.

All the experimentation is helpful and speeds up the process when it can be used, but that's not what the scientific method is.

Passive observation is just as scientific as controlled observation. It's just a lot harder to draw conclusions from. But when you don't have a choice there's plenty of statistical research and theories on how to responsibly draw conclusions from passive observation.

The key part about using science in government is that every policy needs to be verifiable and falsifiable. Politicians need to show what actual theory (common sense is not a scientific theory) lies behind their plans. What they predict would happen if their plans were implemented (if they can't make concrete predictions then they need to research it more) and under what circumstances their plans fail (if any exception is an "exception that proves the rule" then it's not scientific).

It's got absolutely nothing to do with getting a giant AI with an IQ of 200000 to run the country. It's got nothing to do with saying that current scientific theory is suddenly absolute truth and going with that. It's got nothing to do with turning the entire country in an experiment to test whatever crazy theory Bob, the lead scientist, came up with today.

It's got everything to do with a responsible working method that leads to actual results, as the progress of the past decades has shown.

What? Following a trend for predictions? They did that, the graphs went exactly as predicted till suddenly they plummeted, in a matter of hours. A crash. That's where science is so limited in economics.

That's the problem with a chaotic system, just because it's going fast and steady for months at a time doesn't mean it isn't going too fast and that it will fail and under an unpredictable .

Chaos is throwing a bowling ball down a dark flight of stairs, such a predictable parabolic trajectory till it hits a step then it flies off in an unpredictable direction, unpredictable velocity, with incalculable rotation and air resistance. And if your theory is founded on that parabolic trajectory then all your plans assume the ball will travel right through the stairs without resistance.

And how do you falsify these economic theories?

Say injecting X amount of money into Y with Z restrictions at a certain date, the economy goes as predicted... how do you falsify that?

What happens when they try to do the same thing under quite different circumstance, and bet EVERYTHING that is works and... it doesn't. The "proven theory" could have been just a fluke! Or influenced by factors that were present "in vitro" yet not factored in the theory such as the simple fact that the people who have money in the economy believed it would work. A kind of placebo effect. How do you know which was the fluke?

I don't know if it was you or someone else but they said "just let science run everything" well they are and STILL so very little is known for certain, this latest financial crisis has cast long standing ideas into doubt.

But there is a fundamental problem here: the economy is self-aware.

Each element - the investors - know what is going on, they know the theories that the government scientists are trying, what they predict, and that just makes the system so chaotic as individuals try to exploit this for their own ends. And the system is so complicated, each individual is influenced by the entire system that influences the whole system again.

 

[coolkirb]

generally people who think they could do a better job have no clue about economics, the large number of things you have to balance, most leaders are at least ok, and most people think the soloutions are simpler then they actually are.

 

[BabySinclair]

Only if I had reliable people that could help shore up the areas that my knowledge isn't good enough on. Then it's screw the parties and force them to play nice so something can actually get done for a change. It would be really nice if the US had an Independent president that wasn't a nutcase (I seem to have the vote from a lot of people I know because I'm very much a straight forward "What is best for the country" without high-handed political party ideals.)

aka: I'm a moderate that hates both parties, has no desire to further religious agendas, am not willing to sacrifice the economy for social welfare, but am not willing to give execs a free pass. If I ever try to run for office contributors that are not middle-class private citizens better have an understanding that I will not jeopardize the country on their behalf. Companies that contribute will receive no special benefits, my loyalty lies with the people and not conglomerates and private interest groups.

Long-story short: yes

 

[Hagi]

What? Following a trend for predictions? They did that, the graphs went exactly as predicted till suddenly they plummeted, in a matter of hours. A crash. That's where science is so limited in economics.

That's the problem with a chaotic system, just because it's going fast and steady for months at a time doesn't mean it isn't going too fast and that it will fail and under an unpredictable .

Chaos is throwing a bowling ball down a dark flight of stairs, such a predictable parabolic trajectory till it hits a step then it flies off in an unpredictable direction, unpredictable velocity, with incalculable rotation and air resistance. And if your theory is founded on that parabolic trajectory then all your plans assume the ball will travel right through the stairs without resistance.

And how do you falsify these economic theories?

Say injecting X amount of money into Y with Z restrictions at a certain date, the economy goes as predicted... how do you falsify that?

What happens when they try to do the same thing under quite different circumstance, and bet EVERYTHING that is works and... it doesn't. The "proven theory" could have been just a fluke! Or influenced by factors that were present "in vitro" yet not factored in the theory such as the simple fact that the people who have money in the economy believed it would work. A kind of placebo effect. How do you know which was the fluke?

I don't know if it was you or someone else but they said "just let science run everything" well they are and STILL so very little is known for certain, this latest financial crisis has cast long standing ideas into doubt.

But there is a fundamental problem here: the economy is self-aware.

Each element - the investors - know what is going on, they know the theories that the government scientists are trying, what they predict, and that just makes the system so chaotic as individuals try to exploit this for their own ends. And the system is so complicated, each individual is influenced by the entire system that influences the whole system again.

You mistake a single theory failing for science failing.

Economic theories before the crash were wrong. That doesn't make the process used to gain those theories wrong. In fact it's that same process that proved those theories wrong. It's that same process that says there's no right, only not wrong yet.

There's no such thing in science as a proven theory. Nothing is ever proven right. In scientific theory you can only prove things wrong. Proving things right doesn't exist in science.

That's exactly why government needs science. So there's nobody going around claiming that it's been proven and that it's guaranteed to work. Because in science that does not exist. Nothing is ever proven right, nothing is ever guaranteed.

The whole scientific process is built around being proven wrong. That's what science is about. It's not about proving things right. It's about proving things wrong.

Gravity hasn't been proven right. We've just so far been unable to prove gravity wrong so for now we're working under the careful assumption that gravity may be right. But gravity will never be proven right. And you can bet that there's physicists somewhere trying to prove current gravitational theory wrong. And you can also bet that sometime in the future they'll succeed in finding a flaw and coming up with a new theory, that in time will have it's flaws exposed again.

Exactly because economics and the rest of reality is so freakishly complicated. You never know when you're right, it might just have been chance, chaos, a fluke. But you do know when you're wrong. If your predictions fail then you're wrong. And that's what science is about.

Science isn't about being right. It's not even about being wrong, everyone's wrong in science. It's the process of eliminating flaws from theory so that it keeps getting harder and harder to prove theories wrong and as such the predictions gained from those theories keep getting better and better.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

First, death penalty. If you take a life and there is overwhelming evidence - not just beyond doubt - that you did it, you will die, that week, by hanging.

Second, change the prison system to make it a place of therapy, education and corrections for the first offense. Helping people talk about why they commit their crime, and how they can re-enter society and not offend again.
But for the second offense, a hideous screaming nightmare world from which there is no waking, where a man is constantly bombarded by his darkest shadows and sent to the point of clinical insanity. I wouldn't even feed them real food - just dump a truck of scraps in the courtyard every second evening. Whatever happens, happens. Cells that are totally bare, and through the night have zero light or sound. Fights between inmates not broken up. Real "How could you do this to a human being?" shit. Rapists especially, generally lose their rights as people, given generally a cell as a bare concrete room with a stool and noose already set up, and are fed and tended to 'when we get around to it'.
I call it the 'You Had Your Chance' system.
I'd have to do a lot to ensure fair trials and uncorrupted police, but I'm sure I could make it work and horrify some other countries with my soulless brutality.

But outside the scum of society, I would be a benevolent leader, ensuring as many of my people are as happy as possible. Total legalization of gay marriage - not civil fucking unions, MARRIAGE. Gay people have as much right to be miserable as anyone else.
Welfare for the truly deserving - sometimes shit happens and you can't survive on your own for a little while. Pour as much money as I can into education so people CAN better themselves, along with hospitals and clinics, ensuring people can always get the treatment they need.

I want my people to be as safe and happy as possible, and I believe the key to this is rehabilitating, or torturing those who would threaten it.

I hereby place my un-official vote for Shansha right... * <- There.

 

[smithy_2045]

I'd be a shit leader.

However, I would be excellent at running the country from the shadows.

 

[imnot]

I think anyone would be better than David Cameron.

 

[Shivarage]

Really depends on what the government are actually trying to achieve... a fair society or dominant control to the few?

As far as fairness goes, taking away money from the many and not touching the few who actually HAVE money doesn't inspire confidence

 

[Treblaine]

What? Following a trend for predictions? They did that, the graphs went exactly as predicted till suddenly they plummeted, in a matter of hours. A crash. That's where science is so limited in economics.

That's the problem with a chaotic system, just because it's going fast and steady for months at a time doesn't mean it isn't going too fast and that it will fail and under an unpredictable .

Chaos is throwing a bowling ball down a dark flight of stairs, such a predictable parabolic trajectory till it hits a step then it flies off in an unpredictable direction, unpredictable velocity, with incalculable rotation and air resistance. And if your theory is founded on that parabolic trajectory then all your plans assume the ball will travel right through the stairs without resistance.

And how do you falsify these economic theories?

Say injecting X amount of money into Y with Z restrictions at a certain date, the economy goes as predicted... how do you falsify that?

What happens when they try to do the same thing under quite different circumstance, and bet EVERYTHING that is works and... it doesn't. The "proven theory" could have been just a fluke! Or influenced by factors that were present "in vitro" yet not factored in the theory such as the simple fact that the people who have money in the economy believed it would work. A kind of placebo effect. How do you know which was the fluke?

I don't know if it was you or someone else but they said "just let science run everything" well they are and STILL so very little is known for certain, this latest financial crisis has cast long standing ideas into doubt.

But there is a fundamental problem here: the economy is self-aware.

Each element - the investors - know what is going on, they know the theories that the government scientists are trying, what they predict, and that just makes the system so chaotic as individuals try to exploit this for their own ends. And the system is so complicated, each individual is influenced by the entire system that influences the whole system again.

You mistake a single theory failing for science failing.

Economic theories before the crash were wrong. That doesn't make the process used to gain those theories wrong. In fact it's that same process that proved those theories wrong. It's that same process that says there's no right, only not wrong yet.

There's no such thing in science as a proven theory. Nothing is ever proven right. In scientific theory you can only prove things wrong. Proving things right doesn't exist in science.

That's exactly why government needs science. So there's nobody going around claiming that it's been proven and that it's guaranteed to work. Because in science that does not exist. Nothing is ever proven right, nothing is ever guaranteed.

The whole scientific process is built around being proven wrong. That's what science is about. It's not about proving things right. It's about proving things wrong.

Gravity hasn't been proven right. We've just so far been unable to prove gravity wrong so for now we're working under the careful assumption that gravity may be right. But gravity will never be proven right. And you can bet that there's physicists somewhere trying to prove current gravitational theory wrong. And you can also bet that sometime in the future they'll succeed in finding a flaw and coming up with a new theory, that in time will have it's flaws exposed again.

Exactly because economics and the rest of reality is so freakishly complicated. You never know when you're right, it might just have been chance, chaos, a fluke. But you do know when you're wrong. If your predictions fail then you're wrong. And that's what science is about.

Science isn't about being right. It's not even about being wrong, everyone's wrong in science. It's the process of eliminating flaws from theory so that it keeps getting harder and harder to prove theories wrong and as such the predictions gained from those theories keep getting better and better.

You haven't addressed any of the problems I have said with taking a scientific approach to controlling economics.

The chaos. How it is self-aware. How there is no "control" of variables.

Look, we have massive space programs based on current theories of gravitation. We can wipe out diseases based on our germ theory. We can build massive structures based on scientific approach to materials.

But we cannot prevent countries having economic meltdowns.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Of course I'd run my country better.

I mean, I sometimes look at the news (or opinion pieces, which are the same thing), and I only pay attention to rants if they sound convincing. I therefore know everything important about my nation's society, the economy, world affairs and maybe something else important to running a country.

What's that Lacroix quote about everything assuming you choose your decisions by throwing darts at a list of options, and that only they know the right thing to do?

I question many decisions the government makes, but acknowledge that I don't know all that much about the facts of most situations, and nothing at all about the decision making processes.

 

[intheweeds]

-snip-

Wow. really?

So let me get this straight. Just so we're clear:
You're going to attempt to rehabilitate people based on whatever the psychologists believe at the time (i assume you will be getting some info from a professional an this). Then, if you fail, it will be 'hideous screaming nightmare'. That's nice. Then you are going to discolour and cripple whatever 'healing' process you may offer by hanging a giant cloud of fear over the the whole affair, thereby effectively guaranteeing failure. It's a good thing you give the first offense a sentence! A time limit for emotional healing is just what people need to get better! Enjoy your mutinous uprising.

You do realize that we know very little about mental illness right? That there is no cure? You realize science is only absolutely sure about the workings of 10% of our brain matter and the rest is somewhat of a mystery? That the listed mental illnesses change over time as we learn more?

You make huge assumptions about why people commit crimes as well. You assume people commit crime because of some kind of emotional issue. Are you going to 'talk' away someones abject poverty for example? Of course after a good talk they won't live in a ghetto anymore, they'll certainly get a well paying job and buy a house in a nice neighborhood if someone only took the time to talk to them. They only live around gangs and violence because they have emotional issues. If he only had a good talk, that poor father wouldn't need any drug money to feed his kids. He just doesn't understand. Clearly it's a choice people make because they haven't had the chance to talk it out! /sarcasm

How anyone would think this is a good idea is beyond me.

It's call education. Many prisons have resources for inmates to better themselves so they can actually go back to a better life when they get out. In a great deal of prisons, one can get the equivalent of a high-school diploma, and some even have work experience.

Wow! Really? A whole high school diploma? Sign me up!

Seriously - that might get someone in the door at Burger King these days. What your saying is that they already have education in prison. Look how well it's working too, prisons are downright empty and no one ever re-offends! Btw, I make at least three times what a Burger King employee makes and I still live in a shit hole.

You can't magic someone out of whatever fuckup their lives are in. That's the idea of the second part of my leadership plan - to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place.

You really think 'rehabilitation' and 'therapy' is just a sit-down? Get fucking real. The idea of prisons is to get convicts through their sentences and back into productive members of society. Life-termers are obviously beyond that, and frankly I don't see why money should be spent on keeping them alive.
It's only the real 'ghetto for life', if you want to totally generalize that all criminals are ghetto rats, people who are beyond help. I don't want to purge people without giving them a chance, but if they're not interested?

Fuck 'em.

There are a whole lot of factors outside of your ability to rehabilitate that come into play is what i'm saying. You won't stand a chance if you a) surround it with fear and timelines and b) fail to consider that there are a hell of a lot of factors outside a person's ability to change that affect whether they can stay out of prison. You will need to deal with the economic factors that keep certain populations returning to prison in the first place before you expect to 'rehabilitate' anyone.

No of course no one is saying all people in prison are 'ghetto-rats' - as you call it. But your name calling of said individuals suggests a personal bias that leads me to believe you will probably not understand what i am saying.

Regardless, I am of course referring to the obvious ghettoization of certain populations in North America due to economic factors, mental illness or even race. You are confusing 'ghetto for life' as a choice rather than just how they are forced live based on political, societal and economic pressure. If you were stuck in a shitty situation, you would claim whatever made you feel better about it too. Like perhaps showboating that you are happy to be where you are (or maybe tougher than you really are to protect yourself because you live in a violent neighborhood) when you are in fact not. NO ONE wants to have to sell drugs to make a good living and feed their family. That's why when you hear rappers going off about how they're "ghetto 4 life", you don't see them continuing to sell drugs. They don't have to, they make a good living doing something better.

NO ONE wants to live in a shit hole and not be able to afford to get out. There are many socio-economic factors that keep people from getting a better life. The best education is a waste the second you throw that individual back in the wasteland they came to prison from. If you don't like the word 'ghetto', take it up with the dictionary.

Until you fix the rest of the socio-economic problems that cause people to re-offend in the first place, your 'plan' is nothing more than an elaborate and Machiavellian trap to torture prison inmates.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I think a blind Chinese 5 year-old could run my country than Enda f*cking Kenny, the useless d*ck.

 

[Hagi]

You haven't addressed any of the problems I have said with taking a scientific approach to controlling economics.

The chaos. How it is self-aware. How there is no "control" of variables.

Look, we have massive space programs based on current theories of gravitation. We can wipe out diseases based on our germ theory. We can build massive structures based on scientific approach to materials.

But we cannot prevent countries having economic meltdowns.

Because they aren't problems.

It's okay if it's chaos. Everything is chaos. Economics, neurons, sub-atomic particles, galaxies, dimensions etc. All of it is too complicated to easily and directly understand. That's what the scientific method was made for. A way to slowly make progress towards understanding extremely chaotic and complicated systems.

It's okay if it's self-aware. Just makes the system more complicated. Just makes the process longer. Doesn't prevent the process from happening.

It's okay if there's no "control" of variables. There never truly is anyway. Sometimes we're able to minimize the impact of variables, but we can never fully control them anyway. There's tons of statistical research on how to deal with observations where there's no control of variables. It makes the process longer and more complicated. But it doesn't stop the process from happening.

And of course we can't prevent countries from suffering economic meltdowns? Where did you get that idea from?

All we can do is minimize the impact and learn as much from it as we can.

Do you think that just because hurricanes happen applying the scientific method to the weather is useless? We should instead just say that it's too complicated and too chaotic and just take a random survey on what the weather will be tomorrow and the coming week?

And no, I'm not saying that any type of vote is a bad thing. But before something can be voted upon it should have scientific backing so that it's impossible to say whatever works for you personally and then put your PR department on it to convince the general audience.

Democracy is great. It keeps power spread out, which is a good thing. But it does have flaws. I believe we need a second filter, the scientific method. Policies, and the politicians behind them, need to be verifiable and falsifiable. Accountability shouldn't be reduced to popularity, we need more criteria.

 

[Treblaine]

First, death penalty. If you take a life and there is overwhelming evidence - not just beyond doubt - that you did it, you will die, that week, by hanging.

OK, so what if it was verified that I definitely killed a man, I confess to every detail... but I say it was self-defence. Would you still have me hang?

What if I killed someone, but it was an accident? I didn't even mean them harm.

What if I killed someone while suffering from a severe mental disorder and did not know what I was doing.

What if I killed someone because I was ordered to - by you - to hang a man you found guilty of murder?

See this is my problem with "If I was in charge" they don't look at the big picture, the wider implications, to look for flaws in their own argument.

 

[Sansha]

...your 'plan' is nothing more than an elaborate and Machiavellian trap to torture prison inmates.

I could have told you that.

 

[Treblaine]

You haven't addressed any of the problems I have said with taking a scientific approach to controlling economics.

The chaos. How it is self-aware. How there is no "control" of variables.

Look, we have massive space programs based on current theories of gravitation. We can wipe out diseases based on our germ theory. We can build massive structures based on scientific approach to materials.

But we cannot prevent countries having economic meltdowns.

Because they aren't problems.

It's okay if it's chaos. Everything is chaos. Economics, neurons, sub-atomic particles, galaxies, dimensions etc. All of it is too complicated to easily and directly understand. That's what the scientific method was made for. A way to slowly make progress towards understanding extremely chaotic and complicated systems.

It's okay if it's self-aware. Just makes the system more complicated. Just makes the process longer. Doesn't prevent the process from happening.

It's okay if there's no "control" of variables. There never truly is anyway. Sometimes we're able to minimize the impact of variables, but we can never fully control them anyway. There's tons of statistical research on how to deal with observations where there's no control of variables. It makes the process longer and more complicated. But it doesn't stop the process from happening.

And of course we can't prevent countries from suffering economic meltdowns? Where did you get that idea from?

All we can do is minimize the impact and learn as much from it as we can.

Do you think that just because hurricanes happen applying the scientific method to the weather is useless? We should instead just say that it's too complicated and too chaotic and just take a random survey on what the weather will be tomorrow and the coming week?

And no, I'm not saying that any type of vote is a bad thing. But before something can be voted upon it should have scientific backing so that it's impossible to say whatever works for you personally and then put your PR department on it to convince the general audience.

Democracy is great. It keeps power spread out, which is a good thing. But it does have flaws. I believe we need a second filter, the scientific method. Policies, and the politicians behind them, need to be verifiable and falsifiable. Accountability shouldn't be reduced to popularity, we need more criteria.

Well my point has always been that science RIGHT NOW is not ready to fully take over the running of things. Which I believe is what I initially addressed. Sure in the future maybe, but we've been told for the past 50 years that flying cars are only a decade away, yet every decade that passed...

"And of course we can't prevent countries from suffering economic meltdowns? Where did you get that idea from?"

Well we can do a good job of preventing famine and diseases like smallpox and cholera using science.

You are setting the bar real low if you expect to implement science yet we still have to deal with financial meltdowns? Why not just let the same people run it as before?

Science can at least predict hurricanes with great certainly and give people enough warning to prepare, science as it is used today in economics can't give any warning, no indication until we are right in the middle of a huge crash with everyone losing their livelihood.

You need to know the limitations of things, this is like 18th century scientists debating space travel, the technology and principals aren't even on the horizon.

For now we need a system that works, that is stable and productive.

 

[Hagi]

Well my point has always been that science RIGHT NOW is not ready to fully take over the running of things. Which I believe is what I initially addressed. Sure in the future maybe, but we've been told for the past 50 years that flying cars are only a decade away, yet every decade that passed...

"And of course we can't prevent countries from suffering economic meltdowns? Where did you get that idea from?"

Well we can do a good job of preventing famine and diseases like smallpox and cholera using science.

You are setting the bar real low if you expect to implement science yet we still have to deal with financial meltdowns? Why not just let the same people run it as before?

Science can at least predict hurricanes with great certainly and give people enough warning to prepare, science as it is used today in economics can't give any warning, no indication until we are right in the middle of a huge crash with everyone losing their livelihood.

You need to know the limitations of things, this is like 18th century scientists debating space travel, the technology and principals aren't even on the horizon.

For now we need a system that works, that is stable and productive.

My point has been that science isn't a thing. It's a method.

You're treating science as if it's some database of knowledge.

Science is a method of attaining knowledge. It's not the knowledge itself. It's the method used to get that knowledge and to verify that knowledge isn't false.

It doesn't matter whether or not you have the technology to get to space or not. If you want reliable (or at least as reliable as it gets) knowledge about space you need to use the scientific method.

We don't use science to prevent disease. We use medicine to prevent disease. We gained that medicine through the scientific method, but the medicine itself isn't science.

Science isn't the same as technology. Science isn't the same as the results it produces. Science isn't a thing. Science is a method.

Read Karl Popper if you want to get an idea of what science is about, he's one of the greatest scientific philosophers of the past century and the man who made the principle of falsification popular.

 

[wfpdk]

personally i don't know. there are a lot of things on a global scale that i'm just not aware of that could have devastating effects on the longevity of my rein of terr-er uh... happiness. like, exactly how much does china really hates us, or if we really need mexico, or if California really needs to be that big. i think i could do it about as well as anyone given the three branched system of fail that we have, but given the chance to try, i know that my plans would either work out and everyone would be better off even if they didn't know it, or we would be invaded, conquered and be told that we are now better off even if we don't know it.