Since science, in the form it is, has been shown over and over again to surpass any other institution in generating progress, why don't we structure our society the same way the scientific community is structured?
That is, if you had to express some opinion, you would have to publish it in a scientific journal. Some journals would be high standard, peer reviewed, and respected among the society and academia. Others would be trash (but would allow for people like creationists to express their opinions).
This would guarantee both freedom of speech and freedom from the society to suffer from idiots' ignorance.
And I think we indeed should have such a social structure, since we need to stop idiots from denying basic scientific facts such as global warming, pollution, resource depletion, etc., and running all of us into the ground.
>this teen as at his 'le science is da best XD, we should make everything more scientific!' phase
Cute
Let's call it Sociolology
>>7982655
You provided no counter-argument at all. Democracy will run everyone into the ground, and it already is doing so very well. Crucial ecosystems are being destroyed, global warming results in more and more climatic extremes, arable land is being eroded and most of the key resources are being depleted.
Therefore, democracy should be replaced by a system which wouldn't let everyone equal rights in voting: an ignorant creationist idiot shouldn't have the same voting power as a high-ranking academic.
The society should be structured as academia, academia should rule the society and any opinions should only be expressible through academia.
At the present time, democracy doesn't lead to any rational decisions - most of them are based on who's better at PR and empty rhetoric.
>>7982667
>dude who needs equal rights lmao science is all about deciding who gets to vote
>>7982667
Also, when I say that opinions should only be expressible through academia, this also includes publishing in an academic journal and providing rational arguments. This has been shown to be a superior way of generating good policy over and over again, compared to empty rhetoric talk that is typical for democracies.
>>7982674
No. It's not so much about voting. It's about expressing your opinions through academia and academic journals only, and academia ruling the society.
Everyone would still have the same right to publish in an academic journal. It's just that not all idiocy would stand the test of peer review. Those who want to publish junk could do so in trash-level journals, but they would be largely disregarded by the academia.
>>7982681
>he thinks peer review is good enough to be the basis of social structure
>he thinks peer review is good
This I how I know you're a dude science bruh teen
Counterarguments:
-1. How do you plan to do that?
-2. How do you know society will obey those new rules.
-3. Give me some examples.
-4. How would that affect the economy system?
>>7982687
Did you not read the argument, or are you a retard?
I said people should be able to publish in any journals, be they peer reviewed or not.
And peer review is merely a form of quality control, which allows for academics to prioritize what to read. They wouldn't dedicate equal attention to both, creationist and denialist journals and highly ranking, high impact journals, would they?
You clearly seem to be an angsty libertarian teen who smoked too much weed and now so butthurt by a rational argument that he keeps projecting his insecurities on mature adults who had actually accomplished something in the field of science. Lay off the weed for a bit (I'm not saying it's bad), and rethink your opinions, kiddo.
>>7982702
>-1. How do you plan to do that?
I don't.
>-2. How do you know society will obey those new rules.
By becoming educated of the fact that academic rule of the society is better and more rational, and that the society would still have equal rights and freedoms as any other academic to publish in journals.
This realization is likely to come the more we keep running ourselves into the ground.
>-3. Give me some examples.
The academia rules the society, the society can express its points of view, theses and arguments through scientific journals (be they peer reviewed or not).
>-4. How would that affect the economy system?
No idea. I don't know what consensus the academia would come up with on the topic once we deplete enough resources and water, and erode and salinate enough arable soil, but I can guess. Probably a market system with pigouvian tax on externalities, such as pollution and overexploitation of resources, and subsidies for clean energy and space mining (in the future).
>>7982644
>basic scientific facts
That right there invalidates all scientific progress in the last two centuries.
I really can't understand why so many scientists who use the same mathematical formulas as accountants subscribe to theories of economics that are tantamount to wishful thinking.
>>7982751
>tantamount to wishful thinking
Wishful thinking never actually goes away, it just gets delegated to a smaller subset of things.
>>7982751
Elaborate.
Pigouvian tax is necessary to reach an optimal economic equilibrium as per modern economic theory. But then again, I never said that I have the ability to predict what the academia will decide to be the best economic structure for the years to come. Maybe it will be this, or maybe it will be some kind of a democratic market socialist system. Or maybe, instead, it will be a capitalist, mostly free market system with some regulation in the form of taxes and indicative planning. I really can't tell.
>>7982748
Facts are not static. They usually change as the academic consensus changes. And academic consensus is almost always better than average citizen's consensus.
>>7982751
Interestingly enough, they also use the same language as shitposters from 4chan
sounds like an oligarchy composed of faceless academics
im sure loads of people would be keen to submit rule to them
>academics are always right meme
juvenile opinion
i bet you think the venus project is a good idea as well
>>7982764
>academic consensus is almost always better than average citizen's consensus
By what metric? "Is interesting to academics"? Do you even realize WHERE academic funding comes from and WHY it gets distributed? Have you ever participated in actual peer review? Did you think the world was already fully understood?
but opinions aren't scientific and they can't be proven.
>>7982768
Do they call each other autists and cucks?
>>7982764
Because some stuff you can't easily quantify the value of without creating more work than is necessary that could've gone to something better.
>>7982655
/thread
>>7982644
Multiple issues:
>put it in a scientific journal
The issue is that many important areas of opinion are, by default, are neither necessarily provable nor necessarily proven. In these cases, you give the collective consensus of a minority of the population (the editors of these 'non-trash scientific journals') the power to dictate the rules of society.
>others would be trash (creationists)
Case in point: you've just marginalized an extremely influential and productive segment of society with extreme bias. Because this is not your held viewpoint, you've dismissed creationist thought--a family of thought that has been neither objectively proven nor disproven. This is not science; at best, such would be pseudoscience (as it is not objective).
In essence, you're suggesting an oligarchy of academics subscribing to a single thread of pop-science beliefs. Your suggested social structure, however, forms a paradox: the status and reputability of any idea is inevitably linked to the author and his or her previous ability to publish work deemed as meaningful. A simple example: in a society where academic clout is the currency for legitimacy of beliefs, somebody who, for example, is able to solve a Millennium Prize problem in mathematics would become essentially a social arbitrator of opinions in other areas as a result of the importance of previous contributions. This is harmful to even you and your own worldview, then, because if you teach the populace to value the opinions of people who produce important work, you teach the populace to trust the work of Grigori Prelman, the only living person who has solved a Millennium Prize problem, and a person who is a believing Christian.
>>7982644
That's why you need humanities sometimes.
Because you would realize that the autistic proposition you just made is the same, more or less, that Plato has done two thousands years before in the Republic.
Also, what you may perceive as the logical way to make a society function is nothing but a totalitarian regime that wouldn't allow everyone to pursue their happiness. Some would be happy, of course, like in many cases, but for the whole it would be misery.
Although many people do not know what to do with the relative freedoms we managed to obtain, which is indebted to scientific revolutions that shaped societies.
>OP
It would get ruined and become the name of evil at some point, as it happened with communism.
>>7983997
>Some would be happy, of course, like in many cases, but for the whole it would be misery.
>le it's-not-perfect-so-it's-trash argument.
This is what our world is like.
>>7982644
Opinions from edited magazines have already dominated society for centuries.
>>7982644
>basic scientific facts such as global warming,
Scientists alone are not trustworthy, learn to be more cynical
