Democracy, Reality and How to do Science
your Saturday roundup
Professionally, I focus on creating social benefit startups. In my Saturday morning emails I share what I’m learning and thinking. Topics range from better living and parenting to business and philosophy.
Government Forms. A friend recently told me that he doesn’t travel to authoritarian countries. That was a first for me. On the other hand, recently at dinner, I heard praise for a nondemocratic government. My dining companion enumerated the practical benefits of a well-run government not slowed down by too much input. Included was the ability to file government forms via mobile phone, order, economic growth and lack of crime. Plato famously advocated for the philosopher king. And there are impressive individual examples to point to throughout history. But even with the downsides of a democracy, the overriding benefit is error-correction. Perhaps voters don’t always make the best decisions on initially choosing leaders, but the ability to remove leaders from power without violence makes a big difference.
In Silico. Are we living in a computer simulation? Please share your evidence for or against. How should it or does it impact your behavior? Do events and actions matter less or the same if we were in a simulation? Does a kind of Pascal's wager apply that we should assume we’re not in a simulation? I want to be more educated on the topic.
How to Do Science. Here’s an academic article arguing for the mainstream scientific method (aka the Mertonian norms). Notice it is published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. “Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective in generating scientific and technological advances, reducing suffering, narrowing social gaps, and improving the quality of life globally. This perspective documents the ongoing attempts to undermine the core principles of liberal epistemology and to replace merit with non-scientific, politically motivated criteria.” They make a good case for ensuring we don’t lose the core techniques and mindsets that enable science to function. Curious to hear your thoughts. How do you think we should do science? If you want examples of the benefits from reason and science so far I recommend Enlightenment Now. For a less academic book exploring similar topics in culture and politics which includes cartoons, read What’s Our Problem.
Until next week,
Miles