Under representative democracy, policies are not defined by voting. Representatives are voted in, to make the decision. They supposed to make decisions based on facts (including scientific facts) and interests of the constituents. In order to do that, institutions are created, such is bureaucracy, executive branch, committees, etc., those will employ scientists as needed. But a policy can not be made just by scientists. Climatologists can not make policy about climate change, for example, because those should rely on many aspects, including economics, security, international relationships and even internal politics (different states have different needs).
How about the current system where we vote and do science?
Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It's just that the agenda isn't precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.
Science is an empirical method of finding fact.
Government is a philosophical method of seeking truth.
You are being pretty incoherent.
How does science determine the order initiatives are addressed?
Well first we would change beans into peas.
The rest is trivial.
99% of the voters wouldn't know science if it bit them on the butt
You make a good case for your own argument.
Well somebody's got to.
I mean, trying to prove your own theory by being the perfect case study seems a little extreme...
Sounds like a wildly unscientific statement, considering e.g ~10% of the US population works in STEM.
That doesn't seem to make much of a difference, strangely enough.
Elaborate?
Two methods for determining policy.
We vote.
We do science.
Should we switch to the latter?
Under representative democracy, policies are not defined by voting. Representatives are voted in, to make the decision. They supposed to make decisions based on facts (including scientific facts) and interests of the constituents. In order to do that, institutions are created, such is bureaucracy, executive branch, committees, etc., those will employ scientists as needed. But a policy can not be made just by scientists. Climatologists can not make policy about climate change, for example, because those should rely on many aspects, including economics, security, international relationships and even internal politics (different states have different needs).
How about the current system where we vote and do science?
Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It's just that the agenda isn't precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.
Science is an empirical method of finding fact.
Government is a philosophical method of seeking truth.
You are being pretty incoherent.
How does science determine the order initiatives are addressed?
Well first we would change beans into peas.
The rest is trivial.
99% of the voters wouldn't know science if it bit them on the butt
You make a good case for your own argument.
Well somebody's got to.
I mean, trying to prove your own theory by being the perfect case study seems a little extreme...
Sounds like a wildly unscientific statement, considering e.g ~10% of the US population works in STEM.
That doesn't seem to make much of a difference, strangely enough.