On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Philip Hart wrote: > I disagree about the science part - when a cadre of hard scientists are > promoted to high office we can talk. I could think of few things more guaranteed to fail horribly. Large-scale human systems are not things we currently have good science for. If we did, regulation of the economy wouldn't involve nearly as much guessing and hoping. > Of course reductionism isn't > practically applicable to messy poorly-measured systems. Precisely. > In my view it's mostly belief. In the absence of precisely defined and manipulable data, what else is there? > I don't think this has anything to do with liberalism or conservatism, > though in my view liberals are the less belief-driven lately. I've often thought that the more useful distinction is between those who believe that humans are a blank slate that is only civilized through external influence (which must be applied), and those who believe humans are innately good and only acquire evil tendencies due to pernicious external influences (which they must be protected from). That particular split is no respecter of party lines, I've found, however drawn. pe