[MG] scientific method

alex at twister11.de alex at twister11.de
Sat Feb 25 15:00:58 EST 2012


If the people do not like it, it is because of REASONS :-)

1. Could be, they dont like the color
2. Could be, because they want to use the building in a way that was not
anticipated by the experts (a requirement that was not expressed in the
first place)
3. Could be, because people have habits (structure in mind or body (like
muscle memory) that built over time) and they know its too much change to
anticipate the "new ways" of doing/living - so they might need smaller
increments
4. It could be, because they don't see or comprehend how they could do all
the stuff that they did in the past with the new design.
5. Could be, that cooking in the kitchen was of intrinsic value for some
people, they enjoyed cooking food, and maybe the new approach uses a
replicator like the one used in Star Trek - and they hate it to not be able
to do their hobby, or maybe they FEAR that they are not needed anymore and
dont see how they will fit into the new way of doing things
...
...its lot of potential issues - and everyone has a subjective view on the
topic, so who knows if experts do not miss a perspective or maybe there are
conflicting perspectives and experts need to make trade offs, because there
is no technology known yet that could solve the issue with a win-win
situation, or maybe in an actual situation there is no one imaginative
enough to find that solution...
So in essence it SCIENCE vs ART - Is programming ART? Or is it SCIENCE?
...is XY an ART or is it SCIENCE?? - where there is room for Art and there
normaly is if the issue is not trivial, - and with enough subjective
perspectives there will be many requirements and thus the issue wont be
trivial anymore and there will be always room for ART :-)



On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:

> Russel and Alex,
>
> I think we still need a better understanding of the problem as Russel
> sees it.
>
> russell perera said:
> > It does depend on the issue. The issue is a demand and then software
> > has to consider their opinion directly. For example the issue is a
> > demand about housing. It is a basic necessity that demand must be
> > addressed. ...
>
> So when it comes to deciding whether to build housing, the opinion of
> the people who are affected by that decision matters.  However:
>
> > ... However building the houses is a technical issue that needs
> > scientific method approach.  The issue needs only opinion base
> > resolution and then software has to consider both direct democracy
> > and liquid democracy. For example security or foreign policies that
> > need opinion based decisions.  The issue is atechnical and then we
> > have to use scientific method as a primary method to resolve the
> > problem. Direct democracy should consider if people are well
> > informed and educated on this issue. ...
>
> When it comes to deciding *how* to build the housing, the opinion of
> the people who are affected might *not* matter, or it might matter
> *less*, or in some qualified way.  I want to understand exactly what
> you mean here.  Please consider this situation:
>
>  (1) The people who live in a community all agree that housing is the
>      top priority for the infrastructure budget.
>
>  (2) A detailed plan is drafted by experts.  The experts agree it is
>      a good plan.
>
>  (3) The people who live in the community do not like the plan.  They
>      agree it is a bad plan.
>
> Ought the plan (2) to be executed?
>
> > ... If people don’t have knowledge but still they want to involve,
> > then they can use liquid democracy. For example energy production is
> > highly technical issue that can use scientific method, if the people
> > have knowledge about energy production and then they can participate
> > directly and the people who don’t have knowledge can use liquid
> > democracy. In reality people don’t have knowledge about such highly
> > technical issues but we should have a software program that anybody
> > can participate on the issue as a matter of pure democratic
> > principle.
>
> You see liquid democracy (transitive delegation) as a solution to a
> problem, or part of a solution.  But before talking about the possible
> solutions, we need a better understanding of the problem.  We wished
> away the problematic fact of decisions being made by the opinion of
> the few and are now in a counterfactual situation where we confront
> the opinion of the many (3).  In this new situation, what exactly is
> the problem we face?
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> http://www.metagovernment.org/
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription:
> http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
>



-- 
______________________
Alexander Praetorius
ICQ - 8201955
Skype - alexander.praetorius
Facebook - Alexander Praetorius
Diaspora / Geraspora - serapath / Alex P
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20120225/d90a7dd1/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Start mailing list