
A rational nation ruled by science would be a terrible idea - petethomas
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096315-a-rational-nation-ruled-by-science-would-be-a-terrible-idea/
======
fractallyte
However, applying just the first part of the title statement - _a rational
nation_ \- would be world-changing...

Aside from making direct democracy such as Swiss-style referenda possible, the
most terrifying outcome (to political elites) would be in national
defense/offense.

A E van Vogt covered this in 'The World of Null-A': an invading army was
confronted with a populace that mobilized instantly, utilizing every available
implement that could be used as a weapon, and able to make rational decisions
regarding local defense without an overarching leadership.

As for offensive actions: if enough _whys_ had been asked before and during
WWI (and countless other conflicts), millions of soldiers would not have
needlessly perished.

Developing and cultivating rationality, and super-rationality (as detailed by
Douglas Hofstadter), is largely a matter of early education... Schools and
teachers could change the world!

------
EliRivers
_And yet, despite its abysmal track record, people continue to have extremely
positive opinions of “science.”_

I have no fear whatsoever (even though maybe I should) of not having enough to
eat. I believe very strongly that if I cut myself on something, the infection
won't kill me. I've got every expectation of seeing every child I have live to
adulthood. These are incredible achievements.

Abysmal? Science's track record in improving the condition of humans is
phenomenal.

------
TheCoelacanth
Science doesn't tell you what is valuable. Any form of government is
inherently going to rely on a set of moral axioms to tell the government what
to value. The difference between a rational and an irrational government would
be that the rational government would be more likely to get results that match
what is valued by its set of moral axioms. None of that changes the fact that
a government guided by a bad set of moral axioms is going to get bad results,
whether it is rational or irrational.

On the whole, I think liberal democracies have come up with a relatively good
set of moral axioms so applying rationality would be more beneficial than
harmful.

------
nitwit005
Somewhat circular to see someone attempt to use reason to argue against the
use of reason.

~~~
grimoald
To simplify the argument in the article a bit: you can, of course, use reason
to solve some specific problem, but not as a universal system to solve every
problem. That's not circular.

------
jhbadger
No. For starters he brings out the standard examples of dystopias that were
supposedly "based on science" \-- Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The Nazis
were obsessed with mysticism and were only interested in science in terms of
weapons. The Soviets liked to throw around the word "scientific" a lot, but as
with their promotion of Lysenkoism over real biology, they clearly valued
ideology over science.

------
pjc50
The 'problem' is that not only does science not produce moral correctness,
we're a long way towards believing that it _cannot_ do so. We cannot build a
"wrongon" detector to filter out inherently immoral ideas, acts, and people.

You can use science to achieve objectives, but you cannot use science to tell
yourself what your objectives should be.

~~~
jhbadger
Most basic "moral" principles are just descriptions of how to live in a
functional society. While many cultures say murder and theft are "wrong" and
attribute this decision to the will of a deity, it isn't at all hard to see
that a society where people are constantly killing and robbing each other
won't last.

