[MG] scientific method
harrystottle at fullmoon.nu
harrystottle at fullmoon.nu
Wed Feb 29 07:20:48 EST 2012
I rarely stick my oar in (not least because you're still conducting the
debate in this bizarre format rather than a proper forum) but this title
grabbed my attention.
I may have pointed this out in earlier days as I notice that it refers to
to the Metascore project.
Please take some time to check out
It is the lengthy reply I made to an ex Anarchist professor who is a
member of my own forum, when he argued that human beings are not suited to
The piece deals with a number of the fundamental issues at the core of the
metagovernment project. Here are some headline issues:
* variation in intellect and ability
* hard wiring to follow the herd
* the dangers of meritocracy
* the Real problem with Democracy
* Formal structures for deciding propositions
* Prioritisation of Dissent
* Debating Algorithm
* Why Revolutions/revolutionaries fail
* Ethical basis of democracy
But specifically it deals with the "Scientific Method" issue as
illustrated by this quote:
"Democracy falls out of that ethical system because it exposes the fact
that a large part of the personal ethical decision making process - after
all the evidence has been digested - is still subjective; and the only way
we can "objectify" subjective opinion is to measure it. The only fair way
to treat the results of such measurement is to give them equal weight,
regardless of how each opinion was arrived at."
and explains why an agreed policy is more important than a "correct" one,
"Even the consensus I advocate doesn't detect "right answers". All we can
detect is agreement.
By definition, Democracy produces greater levels of agreement than the
alternatives and the Consensual Democracy I'm advocating will produce the
highest achievable levels of agreement. And agreement is MUCH more
important than being "correct". The absence of agreement is, after all,
what produces Conflict."
What I think I'd like you to focus on is my proposed algorithm because the
point of that is to prioritise Dissent. i.e.to make it a "constitutional
requirement" a) to allow (and to hear dissent) and b) to answer it and
establish agreement that it has been answered satisfactorily before moving
on to any decisions about the base proposition.
Dissent is where the empirical arguments (scientific method) should be
focussed. It should be a mandatory requirement to seek scientific
knowledge regarding a proposition; to mandate research where such
knowledge does not yet exist and to ensure that propositions do not
conflict with the scientific knowledge. And please note that I am
deliberately using the phrase "scientific knowledge" as opposed to
"scientific opinion". The science that forms part of a democratic debate
should be that which has already achieved consensus in the scientific
community, otherwise their "opinion" is no more valid than anyone elses.
> Hi Russel,
> Before looking at your proposed solution, I want to understand the
> problem as you see it. Is it the following?
> A. Political decisions are based on opinion
> B. Opinion is a poor basis for political decisions
> If so, what is your evidence for A?
> Michael Allan
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> russell perera wrote:
>> I donât know whether
>> you heard about resource based economic model that used scientific
>> method to
>> arrive at decision instead of human opinion. However present world we
>> have to
>> use human opinion for decision making process because we are so familiar
>> opinion based decision making process, but gradual introduction
>> method of decision making process to replace the human opinion based
>> making process will lead to have more accurate and fair resolutions.
>> Even in
>> classical resource based economic model human opinion may relevant for
>> extend for advance research programs. We cannot use scientific method in
>> current representative democratic system because that will lead to
>> dictatorship. Therefore we must have participatory democracy, before
>> even think
>> about resource based economy.
>> My thinking is
>> transition from plutocratic capitalist political system to more humane
>> based economy that not use money can be done through digital direct
>> First let the people
>> decide what kind of challenges get opinion base decision making process
>> which challenges are arrive at decision by scientific method. For
>> foreign policy, security must need a human opinion based decision making
>> process. However food, water, transportation and housing can be managed
>> intelligent resource management through scientific method with minimal
>> Scientific method of
>> social concern:
>> Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â State the problem- Recognizing a new
>> idea or problem that needs to be resolved.
>> Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Gather information- The use of logical
>> reasoning to create a hypothesis, considering all information available.
>> Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Test the hypothesis in the physical
>> world through observation and state the conclusion. Â
>> opinion is biased, irrational and sometime no common sense. On the other
>> scientific method is easy, no biases at all and logical conclusion can
>> achieved very effective and efficient manner. The main advantage that
>> the scientific method on direct democracy is majority of the issues can
>> resolved by simple scientific method software platform. As a result it
>> reduce the complexity of direct democracy process. Most of human
>> challenges are
>> technical. So scientific method is the best tool to resolve our
>> = Direct Democracy + Liquid Democracy + Scientific Method
>> feel free to ask any question on this regard.
> Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
> Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
> Manage subscription:
More information about the Start