Should science be behind all government legislation?

[OddBeMe]

Like make it provable. Then we can vote on how to deal with it.

Yes

No

A total of 19 votes were cast: 5 girls and 14 guys. See detailed results

[NewsReader]

If I understand you correctly, you are asking if the government should have full right to decide what is fact and what is fiction. My answer is a big NO!!! Just look at all the corruption the government caused with the pandemic. There are probably hundreds of professionals and experts out there who shared excellent, fact-based and common sense explanations along with solutions on how to stop the pandemic. But what did the government do? Cancelled them without debating. They automatically attacked Trump and anyone who dared say "Maybe the virus leaked from a lab" among many other things. The government is the reason we are not fully done with this pandemic. All this could have been prevented if the government had not intervened or colluded.

[OddBeMe]

No I’m saying facts should decide what’s fact and fiction. Not emotions or religious fervor.

[Stoner710]

No, Science does take morals into account. We saw that over the pandemic, The science said we should lock down and mask up. What did that do? Well it gotten us into hyper inflation mental illness In teenagers have skyrocketed and we screwed up early childhood development because kids need to see face in order to form the words they need to speak. The science said lock down and mask up the morality says this was all wrong and screwed up

[OddBeMe]

Ehh yeah the people in science do. But science is facts and theories that best describe phenomena. And it doesn’t appeal to emotion or morals. People do. And the way we use science’s info should be moral.

[Stoner710]

Unfortunately our scientific institutions have been corrupted by woke politics. And biology states men and women are different down do your DNA , Psychology states men can be women and women can be men. Now a lot of people don’t know this but the idea of transgenderism is a religious idea known as gnostic dualism which is the idea that the body and the soul are separate. There can be male and female souls and occasionally a male soul enters the body of a women. So the male soul is a women in body but in spirt that man is a man trapped in a women’s body. Or a women is trapped in a man’s body. So we much surgically alter you. To make your male or female spirt comfortable in the body it was placed in. “The Science” aka psychology says this is perfectly true, and we must start surgically altering those spirt’s body (they won’t actually say spirits). Ethic and moral would subject this is wrong and impossible. But “the science”. Say it’s true so much be true. Science it’s self has become a religion to the left which is why we can’t trust their science right now or at least what the leaders of science have to say.

[Aerissa_Jade]

How would science work for things like gun control, can't pass a bill to restrict it, because science can only prove that gun powered explodes when ignited.

Seems like a lot less bills would be introduced and even less pass, if science has to get behind things.

Then again, science can be manipulated, based on who is funding different things.

Facts, such as numbers of people who die from car accidents, or guns isn't science, that is data collection.

[Rosexøxø]

I think you make the right proposition. 💯✅

I think this can but time and help a lot. Depending on their morals and motives, otherwise they would turn out like @shiftingmonke said.

We can have better solutions established, but at the heart of the matter it is corruption and those who instigate/fuel it. 🔥

[Rosexøxø]

Voted Yes

[ShiftingMonke]

Hear, hear!

[Anonymous]

You do understand, that the nature of science requires open debate and unending examination?

Even Gravity is merely a theory open to challenge and examination. As such the idea of Goverment by science is what we would call anarchy.

For it leaves the question of force to everyone to resolve by experimentation.

[OddBeMe]

Sure but gravity is a fact. Just because we don’t (and won’t) know 100% about it doesn’t mean it isn’t scientific fact.

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme Gravity is still a theory backed up by the observational evidence we do have. Evidence which even be sure is correct. All we can say on the theory of gravity is that as far as we can tell it is real like everything else.

Anyone of course is free to question that assumption and of course there is plenty of room to do so given our lack of evidence that we are ourselves real.
It is indeed quite possible that we live in a simulation.

[OddBeMe]

You’re making it sound like scientific theory is a hypothesis just as good as intelligent design or flat earth. If so I’d advise you to revisit your 4th grade textbooks.

Nothing is higher in science that a theory. There’s lots of confusion as society uses the word “theory” differently. But to be called a theory in science means it’s the best explanation of all the facts we have. Of course still open to improvement. I’m sure we’ll learn more about gravity in the decades to come.

But don’t make it sound like gravity could be completely upended (pun intended).

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme A scientific theory is a testable hypotheses that so far as we can tell passes all tests in the least complicated way within the assumption that the world we are testing in is real.

Intelligent design is not testable, as it is an explication for the origin of that world. Any test you apply would have to add additional assumptions on what you regard 'intelligent' to included as a design feature to test for.

It seems quite unlikely we could agree on that seeing as we can't even agree we are that intelligent much less the question of what is intelligent.

Gravity would be completely upended if our assumptions about what we observe is incorrect.

[OddBeMe]

How could the theory of gravity be incorrect that it upends itself? That’s be like brain in a car is real.

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme Not sure what your saying, the theory of gravity would not upend itself, but rather some knowledge underpinning our accusations leading to the theory of gravity would upend itself.

As for the brain in the car is real hypotheses you lost me there. I was saying its entirely possible indeed according to some more likely that nothing is real.

[OddBeMe]

Sorry meant brain in a vat (the matrix hypothesis that can’t be disproven).

[OddBeMe]

And yes you’re right, any facts that we learn about gravity could “upend” previous ideas. But facts remain facts. They can fit like a puzzle differently as science is a giant puzzle where we have to find the pieces and place them as we go.

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme Actually there is an earlier scientific thought experiment by a guy named Ludwig Boltzmann called the Boltzmann Brain that more simplistically defines the problem. The matrix theory is a bit more complex and introduces the problem of ignorance in system design, which of course is the major plot issue of the story.

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme Facts remain facts only until we find out they were merely illusions.

[ShiftingMonke]

If the scientists can be bought, then they become just as political as the politicians; that's just regular government with extra steps.

[Rosexøxø]

OKAY

OKAY

I SEE YOU 😳

Now it’s serious. 🧐🤨 lol another great answer how can I top this? ☺️

[ShiftingMonke]

@Rosexøxø you can top my answer by repeating it, but in CURSIVE.

[NewsReader]

⬆️ Best Answer ⬆️

[OddBeMe]

Scientists are “bought” when their experiment and hypothesis turns out correct and become theory. Then it’s consensus and funded.

[NathanDavis]

lobbyists... should be gone

but every sitting congress keeps giving them more and more power to reach into your pockets

[OddBeMe]

Well that would be the biggest boon. Axe lobbying. Like a cancer.

[gorydetails]

This is "science" driving government legislation

[OddBeMe]

No that’s being driven by politicians funded by Tyson chicken.

[gorydetails]

It’s the same method as getting your clot shots approval

[OddBeMe]

Sorry what?

[gorydetails]

Read it again

[OddBeMe]

Clot shots?

[gorydetails]

Yes. The shots you liked mandating for the past two years that give people blood clots and heart attacks and myocarditis.

[OddBeMe]

Oh, you mean the Covid vax that saved millions upon millions. But yes, as with all meds, there are side effects. Luckily it’s 1-2% tops.

[gorydetails]

Yes. The shots killing children.

[OddBeMe]

Do you have evidence of this claim?

I imagine truth eagle. gun website will be posted soon…

[gorydetails]

VAERS is your friend.

[OddBeMe]

Oh god…you fcks have typed V-A-E-R-S like 20 million times here. And yet, any accredited “adverse effects” hasn’t been worse than death.

[gorydetails]

Yeah, it’s completely normal for athletes to drop dead by the hundreds.

[OddBeMe]

Um what? I missed that story.

[AngryCarl2]

Why? Does the government need to legislate on how long it takes the Earth to rotate around the sun? And how would that kind of legislation be enforced anyway?

[OddBeMe]

I’m talking about taking away rights like brith control based on religiosity. Perhaps if bills required at the least to speak to scientific consensus…?

[AngryCarl2]

Science doesn't make moral judgements.

[OddBeMe]

It makes facts that moral judgements should be based on. If the facts aren’t in, neither are your moral judgements. Despite whatever religious book you read.

[Sevenpointfive]

yes. but give an example. no one in government that makes decisions is a scientist

[OddBeMe]

True, but I guess I’m saying not taking away rights unless a consensus of scientists says it’s an issue.

[Sevenpointfive]

then i think a moratorium of scientists should be on hand to make decisions in the interests of the public

[OddBeMe]

There are. It’s called…. science. Consensus just ain’t a group of guys we assemble half assed. It’s literally the entire field of whatever science it is…gynecology or neurology for instance…and if the evidence lines up for everyone, it’s science. No authorities. Just consensus.

[PatriceONeal]

Dumb

[OddBeMe]

Don’t beat yourself up so hard. You’ll have a better response later.

[PatriceONeal]

After careful consideration I still think you and this post as aggresively dumb in premise and ideology.

[OddBeMe]

Thee appreciates thy’s welcome criticism and the monumental time it took for thou to assembly thy words.

[PatriceONeal]

Dummbbbb