Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What if a new nation arose where, instead of basing decisions on the masses or emotions, it was based on statistics and science?
Where the main goal would be the guaranteed freedom and privacy of people and the advancement of science?
Where it would be illegal to spread misinformation purposefully?
Where all Politicians had to have proper debates with points backed by facts, and have to have a college degree?
Where college is free?

How would it be?...

At 7/22/13 08:55 PM, Revo357912 wrote: How would it be?...

Blown to shit by the non nerd countries.

At 7/22/13 09:23 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 7/22/13 08:55 PM, Revo357912 wrote: How would it be?...

Blown to shit by the non nerd countries.

Note I never said it would peaceful or ethically restrained in it's science.

It would fucking suck.

I don't want to have my memories wiped and a new mental template installed via brainwashing every time I step out of line. Governments need "moral comfort zones" or they turn into fascist regimes.

On paper, it would probably be the most advanced country in human existence, and would probably be on the verge of time travel, immortality, and shooting fire out of your hands. It would be kind of like Rapture from Bioshock.

In real life, it would most likely be a complete fucking disaster, considering that the standards of living would be pretty mediocre, especially if they have human lab rats and you do need people to scrub the toilets, which I would think that most scientists won't do.

At 7/22/13 08:55 PM, Revo357912 wrote: What if a new nation arose where, instead of basing decisions on the masses or emotions, it was based on statistics and science?

Well modern politics isn't about statistics, it's over their interpretation. In reality US government has more to do with this scientific debate, it's just done with closed doors. Politicians don't act how they really are when they're in the spotlight, they often have to do controversial things which antagonize people of different ideology and even make them look stupid or mere spectacles (like Congressional investigations into the use of steroids in sports) but it brings them attention, which brings them fame, which brings them brand recognition, which brings them more opportunities like running for President. Ted Cruz is a perfect example, the guy graduated Harvard with High Honors and was described by his professors as one of the smartest guys they've seen, as Senator though everyone thinks of him as one of the dumbest people they've ever seen.

Where the main goal would be the guaranteed freedom and privacy of people and the advancement of science?

Those are broad concepts which lack the specific detail which would arise debate

Where it would be illegal to spread misinformation purposefully?

That's sort of the case right now, it's just hard to prove "purposefully". Slander is like this, it's hard to prove that the intent was to cause Malice.

Where all Politicians had to have proper debates with points backed by facts, and have to have a college degree?

That's already the case, in fact it may be too much the case if you ask me. Starting in 1988 every President went to one of two schools, Harvard and Yale (or in the case of Baby Bush both), and every Presidential candidate barring John McCain and Bob Dole did as well. What we're seeing is more and more Presidents going to one of two schools and indeed the influential politicans are becomg increasingly from those schools.

Where college is free?

That should be the case and it is in many places. College is one of those things where you spend money and you make money, it improves the skills of the population and makes them move up the income brackets. This means they pay more taxes which means the government makes more money. Job training programs in general work like that, they also cost alot so they're targets for Conservative legislators.......

How would it be?...

Sounds like Communism honestly. The Communists believed they were making a scientific government with many of the same goals as you listed (even Democracy). The problem in my opinion is more you're trying to change people to fit the government instead of changing the government to fit the people. That was a big reason why these Utopian dictatorships like the USSR or Nazi Germany failed.

At 7/22/13 08:55 PM, Revo357912 wrote: What if a new nation arose where, instead of basing decisions on the masses or emotions, it was based on statistics and science?

Well it wouldn't be a democracy anymore basically.
How you'd make such a country, I have no idea.

At 7/22/13 08:55 PM, Revo357912 wrote: What if a new nation arose where, instead of basing decisions on the masses or emotions, it was based on statistics and science?
Where the main goal would be the guaranteed freedom and privacy of people and the advancement of science?
Where it would be illegal to spread misinformation purposefully?
Where all Politicians had to have proper debates with points backed by facts, and have to have a college degree?
Where college is free?

How would it be?...

Hardly different from what exists now.

Humor aside let's break down what you've said.

1. One immediate contradiction is in making it "illegal to spread misinformation" on the one hand and guaranteeing basic freedom for each member of society. Unless your definition of basic freedom precludes freedom of speech. You cannot actually make it illegal to lie, what you *can* do it empower a group of individuals to legally persecute those that they claim are liars. Whether or not and to what extent said group effectively enforces honesty is entirely speculative.

You should spent more time thinking about what causes and effects can be brought about through institutions and why.

2. How exactly is a guarantee of free college education or freedom of privacy connected with a state which runs by scientific principles? I'm not saying that it cannot be but I'm not seeing the essential link between the two. Or are you linking "Science" with these other things you like precisely because you like them and therefore associate them with one another.

3. You will not find a single person who claims their vision of how the world is, or ought to be, is "Unscientific" [or, more accurately, anti-scientific]. Soviet planners thought their system was grounded in science, right until the point it collapsed. I imagine the Nazi state fashioned itself as being organized on the principles of science [science relating to human races]

What some people MAY say if they are intellectually honest is that their vision of the world is NON-scientific.

An issue is non-scientific when it cannot be decided by scientific means. For example, Science can tell you that smoking will damage the health of your body [Assuming it actually does]. Science cannot tell you whether you OUGHT to value the health of your body and therefore not smoke. The former is an OBJECTIVE issue with an objective answer. The latter is a judgement call.

Most political issues have people disagreeing on empirical matters. [What the effect of a law will be] -- but more often then not, it is a disagreement on priorities. To use a non-controversial example, it is generally agreed that tariffs benefit [domestic] exporters and harm consumers. No amount of "Science" can tell you whether one ought to benefit domestic consumers or domestic exporters.

4. Connected with point 3, "Facts" are everywhere and you can always selectively find facts to justify any theory. The use of facts is not what makes science different from non-science. "facts" is just an idiotic buzz word. The only thing you have are various measured and unmeasured observations of reality, "Empirical observations" -- by interacting with the world [through controlled and repeatable experiments] you are essentially trying to infer causality.

I can't abide people who worship science, they generally don't understand why science works and therefore don't understand what its limitations are.

5. Political / social science is not an actual science, and the bulk of college degrees are not governed by hard scientific processes. The shorthand explanation is that these sciences are generally incapable of formulating hypotheses which are all of the following; observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

The below video explains it fairly well. The first 3 minutes are kind of obtuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg&list=PLF1F1F4B4C0 C85189

Okay, I guess I should clarify then.

Main goal of country: Scientific advancements in all areas possible (such as robotics, physics, math, psychology, medicine, food, weaponry, education for example)

Ethic and Moral restraints would be to use innocent humans for experiments (war prisoners would be okay), and limits on mind control science and highly illegal to use sciences that directly invade privacy unwillingly against nations own members.
Also, no limits on animal testing.
Viral and Bacterial Weaponry would be allowed only for medical purposes.
I'm not saying people won't break these laws though.

Laws such as drinking age, age of consent, age to drive etc would be based on current scientific studies and statistics that can be reproduced and determined by an elected board of scientists who have a PHd in that respective field.

Blatant misleading (example, some of the charts Fox News uses) would be determined by a special elected board related to logic reasoning and would be highly illegal. Art of Persuasion would be okay as long as it does not use deception.

All Politicians have to have a college degree, not just the top ones; governors, mayors, etc for example.
In debates, they cannot use things such as emotional persuasion not founded in science or religion (such as some conservatives currently do in America for example).

College is free. No explanation there.

Also, potentially harmful things cannot be sold in products until they are rigorously cleared (example; triclosan, Sodium Benzate in America) by a specialized department.

Sounds like the sort of result you would get from dumping a trillion dollars into making public education better. I.E. the standard of interactions increases to a point where it's impossible to be deceptive.

If every citizen makes perfect decisions because they have access to a perfect education, then why do you even need a government?

At 7/23/13 11:21 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Okay, I guess I should clarify then.

Ethic and Moral restraints would be to use innocent humans for experiments (war prisoners would be okay),

?

and limits on mind control science

So we're limiting science now?

and highly illegal to use sciences that directly invade privacy unwillingly against nations own members.

You mean like the science that was used to make the internet?

Also, no limits on animal testing.

Endangered species here we come.

Viral and Bacterial Weaponry would be allowed only for medical purposes.
I'm not saying people won't break these laws though.

Laws such as drinking age, age of consent, age to drive etc would be based on current scientific studies and statistics that can be reproduced and determined by an elected board of scientists who have a PHd in that respective field.

I'm going to guess that at some point it's merely a matter of opinion for those people.

Blatant misleading (example, some of the charts Fox News uses) would be determined by a special elected board related to logic reasoning and would be highly illegal. Art of Persuasion would be okay as long as it does not use deception.

Again you can't determine or prove this.

All Politicians have to have a college degree, not just the top ones; governors, mayors, etc for example.

They already do.

In debates, they cannot use things such as emotional persuasion not founded in science or religion (such as some conservatives currently do in America for example).

Uh define "emotional persuasion". If someone is really confident then wouldn't that come across as emotion?

College is free. No explanation there.

Also, potentially harmful things cannot be sold in products until they are rigorously cleared (example; triclosan, Sodium Benzate in America) by a specialized department.

That's already the case, the problem is when you're delaying life saving drugs for years and years when people need them now. It's really difficult to test every single scenario.

I think a humanist/scince based government would be better. That way conscience still exists but it only serves to protect us from ourselves and not to force dogma upon eachother.

Summary: We are the Borg.

No more religious motivation influencing legislation? Yes, please.

At 7/22/13 09:23 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 7/22/13 08:55 PM, Revo357912 wrote: How would it be?...

Blown to shit by the non nerd countries.

Nerds are the ones who invented modern weaponry, man.

At 7/23/13 11:21 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Okay, I guess I should clarify then.

Main goal of country: Scientific advancements in all areas possible (such as robotics, physics, math, psychology, medicine, food, weaponry, education for example)

Ethic and Moral restraints would be to use innocent humans for experiments (war prisoners would be okay), and limits on mind control science and highly illegal to use sciences that directly invade privacy unwillingly against nations own members.
Also, no limits on animal testing.
Viral and Bacterial Weaponry would be allowed only for medical purposes.
I'm not saying people won't break these laws though.

Laws such as drinking age, age of consent, age to drive etc would be based on current scientific studies and statistics that can be reproduced and determined by an elected board of scientists who have a PHd in that respective field.

You either didn't read my post or you didn't understand. Science can at best tell you what the average effect of a given quantity of alcohol has on a person's body.

More often then not these issues are grounded on differences of opinion.

You also don't appreciate how often social science theories fail to explain reality time and time again and yet are treated as equally valid to the hard sciences.

Moreover, you won't have any problem finding technical literature providing justifications to this or that policy grounded on statistics or mathematical models. These things already exist. The reason you don't notice them is because the overwhelming majority of people lack the mental capacity to process the information and 1. determine whether the conclusions of the publishers are valid 2. integrate said publishers findings into their own ideas.

Blatant misleading

Any single institution granted the power of determining what is "True" or "false" is going to abuse that power for their own benefit. If, for example, the prestige press or some institution similar had been granted the kind of power you describe in todays world, people would still very likely believe that Trayvon Martin was a 12 year old and George Zimmerman was a Caucasian Klansmen.

It's bad enough that often times scientific inquiry is circumscribed by the fact that the people funding the research are putting informal pressure on scientists to arrive at conclusions favorable to their interests. [Google search the lipid hypothesis for an example]

You also don't seem to appreciate how often a scientific consensus is broken by a small minority of researchers [sometimes even by a single person] -- And said small body is often met with the greatest level of hostility. Plate Tectonics is an example of this. Galileo is probably more famous.

Also, whereas one may stand a chance at objectively identifying something which is downright anti-factual, most forms of deception are grounded in things which are true, but which are represented in a selective and therefore dishonest way. Determining whether someone misrepresents something is a matter of personal discretion and therefore open to one's subjective whims.

The only thing that has a chance of keeping *everyone* honest is the assumption that all knowledge sources are in competition with one another, and no one is assumed apriori to be a "correct" source.

All Politicians have to have a college degree, not just the top ones; governors, mayors, etc for example.
In debates, they cannot use things such as emotional persuasion not founded in science or religion (such as some conservatives currently do in America for example).

All political beliefs are grounded on emotions, in one form or another. Emotional appeals are indeed a form of psychological manipulation, but ultimately all beliefs about the way the world.

One's desire for peace, war, security, inclusion, exclusion, social welfare, etc. etc. are all non-scientific. Progressives who demonize those who advocate changes to public expenditure as being heartless are communicating based on a common emotional language. Calling someone a racist has meaning because and only because racism is seen as something which is bad.

Science does not and cannot provide you with any input as to whether a thing is racist [or, for that matter, whether said "racism" is good or bad] nor can it tell you whether or not one "ought" to spend more or less on the destitute. The most it can do is tell you what the consequences of following one line of action or another will be, and very often it is incapable of doing even that. [For reasons prior explained]

But I've already stated this in my previous post. You never denied it or even acknowledge it, you simply repeated what you stated in your OP.

I frequently become aware of progressives who love to talk about science and yet cannot recognize the emotional / subjective basis for many of their core beliefs.

Also, potentially harmful things cannot be sold in products until they are rigorously cleared (example; triclosan, Sodium Benzate in America) by a specialized department.

I'm not objecting to or lauding the notion of inspection, I merely pointed out that you provide no reason for why this has anything to do with science.

I bring this up because I suspect you're just LINKING these things to science, because, like science, you view product inspection as something wholesome.

At 7/24/13 07:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

:: a lot of valid points and stuff

Okay, to oversimplify things and make the government able to evolve to changing times and research;

-The goal of the nation is advancement of hard sciences first and foremost.
-Religion and related things cannot openly intervene in government in any way or form.
-College is free.
-The moral standards will be;
1) Invasion of privacy unwillingly is highly illegal
2) Human test subjects can only be used with those who are not innocent of major crimes, volunteers, POW's, and the terminally ill (the last only if it is in attempt to cure them using drastic measures).
3) Mind control is forbidden.
4) Biological warfare and Artificial Infection Research is prohibited on Earth.

These are the fundamental of said nation.

At 7/24/13 09:16 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

At 7/24/13 07:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

a lot of valid points and stuff

Okay, to oversimplify things and make the government able to evolve to changing times and research;

-The goal of the nation is advancement of hard sciences first and foremost.
-Religion and related things cannot openly intervene in government in any way or form.

Related things?

What is a religion anyway? Is it a moral doctrine? A set of beliefs concerning the metaphysical? Or a moral doctrine justified by appeals to the metaphysical?

Before you try to wrap your mind around that question, ask yourself the following.

If the bible explicitly demanded that all good and true followers of god must support taxpayer funded universities, would it therefore be against the rules of your society to have universities / tuitions funded by the state?

I've ignored the rest of your post since you don't seem to be addressing my points concerning the nature of science.

First off, the people running the country and the individual citizens wouldn't thrive together unless they were a race similar to the vulcans off of star trek (No emotion, just logic.) There would be no such thing as opinion unless it was something based off of hypothosis that wasn't yet proven, thus your politics would be greatly simplified as would the media. (No fox news vs. huffington post. It would just be a single unified news source. nothing more, nothing less.)

If a country was governed entirely by science and logic, there would be a few factors I'd consider. first off, size. If it's large enough and powerful enough, it would probably become a supernation relatively quickly. Any smaller and it would probably become subject to neighboring nations trying to hone in and try to take over industries. This would either cause the smart state to either develop faster to survive or fail from the start. Advancements in your sciences would mean a fast sweep of the industries and technologies eventually making the rest of the world somewhat obsolete. (I'm also considering that they're making 100 % accurate and flawless products.)
Some time would pass and any enemies of this said "Smart State" would probably perish due to the fact that the smart state would (Again, Logically) preemptively strike any nation that may eventually want to harm them. Given the right amount of time, the emotional people would be conquered and destroyed or converted due to the fact that without emotion, you are content. With contentment, you have no reason to protest or attempt to overthrow your government.

The biological part you brought up is BS seeing as how chemical and nuclear warfare would leave the planet unusable due to radiation or poisons remaining.

I got this rough Idea from a Model UN scenario where a new nation was formed from the point of View of a supervillian typed dictator with no emotion at all that was hellbent on destroying 90% of the world's population to relieve the effects of planet overpopulation. It didn't end well as there was no real way to win.

At 7/24/13 11:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 7/24/13 09:16 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

At 7/24/13 07:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

a lot of valid points and stuff

Okay, to oversimplify things and make the government able to evolve to changing times and research;

-The goal of the nation is advancement of hard sciences first and foremost.
-Religion and related things cannot openly intervene in government in any way or form.

Related things?

What is a religion anyway? Is it a moral doctrine? A set of beliefs concerning the metaphysical? Or a moral doctrine justified by appeals to the metaphysical?

If it defines itself as a religion, and follows the pattern of classic religions (both major and non-major) as well as current modern religion, it will be considered a religion.
My point is that your beliefs cannot openly affect government; your actions should be based on logic and scientific facts/data as much as possible.

Before you try to wrap your mind around that question, ask yourself the following.

If the bible explicitly demanded that all good and true followers of god must support taxpayer funded universities, would it therefore be against the rules of your society to have universities / tuitions funded by the state?

First off, I'd like you to tell me a religion where such a thing is true; I don't care about what-ifs if they don't matter.
Secondly, it is the government funding it with tax money - whether you agree with it or not you still have to pay taxes (just like in the US and property taxes for example); and the government is as removed from religion as possible.

I've ignored the rest of your post since you don't seem to be addressing my points concerning the nature of science.

I get that, but the thing is as of right now, governments are not built around science for science as purely as possible, which is the aim of this government.

If it defines itself as a religion, and follows the pattern of classic religions (both major and non-major) as well as current modern religion, it will be considered a religion

Before you try to wrap your mind around that question, ask yourself the following.

If the bible explicitly demanded that all good and true followers of god must support taxpayer funded universities, would it therefore be against the rules of your society to have universities / tuitions funded by the state?

First off, I'd like you to tell me a religion where such a thing is true; I don't care about what-ifs if they don't matter.
Secondly, it is the government funding it with tax money - whether you agree with it or not you still have to pay taxes (just like in the US and property taxes for example); and the government is as removed from religion as possible.

It's a hypothetical designed to get you to think about the difference [or lackthereof] between secular and religious morality.

If you want a more realistic example, the Bible also contains injunctions against murder and theft. Would your scientific state reject laws against murder and theft on account of them being mentioned in the bible? There is obviously more to it than simply being associated with religion.

My point is that you have people who are secularists, but have normative views which they consider "Moral". Since these views come from nothing more than their own sentiments, they are as scientifically grounded as religious moral views.

To be more precise, the moral proposition that "stealing is wrong" is as objectively valid [that is, it has no objective validity] as the moral proposition that one should not have sex before marriage.

Certain moral prescriptions can have consequentiality justifications that others lack [i.e. the consequences of allowing stealing are worse than the consequences of permitting sex out of wedlock] [google search consequentialism if necessary] -- However an appeal to consequences itself cannot be scientifically justified.

One of the biggest problems with the idea of a country run by science is the lack of public support it would have. Just because 2 people have a college degree, even the same degree, doesn't mean they will agree. Education, or Science have little effect on people's Beliefs... Beliefs come from Family, social position, life experience, personality, intelligence, ease of success, motivation... the list goes on and on. The point being society would be NO different. People would still disagree just as much on everything.

So all you would have is a dictatorship or a 'democracy' where the majority doesn't care or even pay attention to the government any more. (basically, what we have now)

Humans are a product of Evolution not Science. Robots might live very well in your Science-based society. Humans however wouldn't. Evolution means there is a wide range of people of vastly varying intellects and abilities, but Science would only allow people with skill in ONE area to rise to the top, get all the money, power, respect.... Eventually, all other areas would lose funding. Religions, art, sports, and all other non-scientific creativity would degrade. Ironically, this country would actually start falling behind other countries, even in science. This is because progress comes from BALANCE in all areas where different people in different groups ALL can succeed. If you focus on only one area you will actually fall behind as a country.

The concept that a non-scientific world-view is somehow not important is silly. Mother Theresa, Beethovan, Micheal Jordon don't know science at all, but these people still change the world.

It would probably go pretty bad.

This is similar to a Technocracy.

I have had some theories/ideas on how this could work. The problem is that any form of government invariably leads to a situation where the electorate needs to be dumbed down/fed misinformation/etc. in order to maintain stability.

It's one of the underlying reasons why power always leads to corruption.

One nice thing about it, if it could actually work, is that it would lead to the rise of a certain type of person I admire a lot. These are basically people dumb enough to maintain focus on something specific for a long period of time. (long enough to accomplish things) but smart enough that this "something specific" is something scientific.

Based on what you're Writing we would have to write a foundational law a Little more specific than that but hey, i Think its could work.

Technocracy.

At 7/30/13 09:22 PM, sharpnova wrote: This is similar to a Technocracy.

I have had some theories/ideas on how this could work. The problem is that any form of government invariably leads to a situation where the electorate needs to be dumbed down/fed misinformation/etc. in order to maintain stability.

It's one of the underlying reasons why power always leads to corruption.

Why dumb it down? Keep it like it is and let the people try to figure it out, that's how humans learn.

Also, If its a one-man leadership from the start, with a council on the side to keep him in check, wouldn't it greatly reduce power corruption? Especially when the ideological goal of that government isn't morality, but science?

At 7/22/13 10:19 PM, Profanity wrote: It would fucking suck.

I don't want to have my memories wiped and a new mental template installed via brainwashing every time I step out of line. Governments need "moral comfort zones" or they turn into fascist regimes.

who dafuq said they would memroie wipe u

hey still better than having liberals in charge

At 7/31/13 11:48 PM, coldplayguy77 wrote: hey still better than having liberals in charge

Yes because preaching creationism is so based on ANY scientific reasoning...