On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > 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. I'm not advocating Scientist-Kings - I'm advocating people trained to be skeptical and weigh evidence as dispassionately as possible. > Precisely. > > > In my view it's mostly belief. > > In the absence of precisely defined and manipulable data, what else is > there? There is a lot of good data, and then there are economics, sociology, and experimentation. We could talk about the Houston school systems if you like, or free trade, or the recent govt study of the cost/benefit analysis of limited regulation. > > 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. Hmm, I don't see things in those terms. Maybe "optimistic/pessimistic" and "happy/unhappy" would be useful in making the division you suggest. Really though I think few people have self-consistent belief systems. > pe > > >