Rule by Technocrats

Convergences (a blog I'm not familiar with, aside from this article) tackles the issue, "Can Science Rule Society?" Some interesting discussion, but I find it hard to identify the author's point, if there is one. There's a lot of on-this-hand/on-the-other-hand, without coming to a clear conclusion. But I think the author is wary of rule by scientists.

If that's the point, I agree, although perhaps for other reasons. Science and scientists (I am one, after all) can identify processes and facts and so on that relate to practical issues before the government. But the question of policy--of what we should do about it, if anything--is not a scientific question. It's a political one.

Let's take global warming. Is there global warming? If there is, is it man-made? If there is, and we wanted to stop or reverse it, what techniques would work? These are entirely scientific questions.

If there is, should we stop/reverse it? That's not scientific. A scientist can give the consequences for different policies, but science cannot tell us which policy (if any) to take. Science itself is morally neutral. Man's well-being, morality, and ethics are not scientifically determined. These can come from common sense (in easy cases), from political ideals, and most fundamentally from established religious and moral systems.

The article misses some of this, for instance with sex education. It declares abstinence-only education a failure (I'm not familiar with studies; it's not much of an interest of mine) and denigrates the idea, saying the issue is well-suited for rule-by-scientists. But pregnancy and STD infection rates aren't the whole issue. The morality of the actions are also important, and that's something entirely missed by looking at statistics. Should sex-ed be resigned to or even encouraging of sexual behavior by kids? A scientific approach misses this whole question.

Heck, let's take it up a notch to eugenics. There was a great job of rule by science! Scientific principles were driving the whole scheme. But should it have been done at all? Ahh, you see, that wasn't a scientific question, and the immorality of the program was dismissed by those Progressives who pushed for a scientific government.

Policy can or should be informed by research (depending on what we're talking about), but the decision of what to do cannot often be a scientific one.