Trusting only physicists/mathematicians

[zarus tathra]

I've decided that the only political thinkers and speakers that I'll give any credibility to are physicists and mathematicians. Carroll Quigley, author of "Tragedy and Hope" and "The Evolution of Civilizations," my 2 favorite history books of all time, was a very strong physics student before he decided to become a history professor. Bertrand Russell is a favorite social commentator and, not coincidentally, one of the founding fathers of mathematical logic. Chomsky is also a favorite of mine, and he's super-mathematically inclined himself. These are some of the few political commentators that I can trust to have any sort of intellectual rigor, and they're all really mathematically inclined. I don't agree with EVERYTHING these people say, but they're the only people who say anything that I can agree with.

[Sal1981]

I've often argued that the people who should lead, if leadership is necessary, are people well-versed in the sciences of leadership. We expect in every other field that people have been educated & trained in them, yet what are the requirements for being a politician? As far as I know, there are no calls for being an expert for someone having such a large influence on everyone else's lives.

That's at least what it is like around here; any joe of the street can sign up for a political platform and only requirement is that he or she gets enough votes to get a seat on the parliament. No calls for competence other than the sway of the public voter is required. Wouldn't you want law-makers to be educated in law-making?

[Plu]

But who would you trust to be able to decide who is and who is not allowed to become a politician?

[Mister Agenda]

The thing about a person's politics is that they identify with with an ideology that reflects their values. People are always going to have different values, so there can never be a one-size-fits-all political ideology. Your politics are literally a matter of taste. In a democracy, being a successful politician depends on getting a majority of people to think you're more to their taste than the other guy. In an autocracy, being a successful politician depends getting the autocrat to think you're more to his or her taste than the competition.

[zarus tathra]

Yeah, but mathematicians and physicists tend to be less pushy and are capable of actually QUESTIONING things once in a while, at least more so than the average plebeian.

[Insult to Rocks]

Just because someone is intelligent in one field does not make them intelligent in the other. You should trust people who have intelligent views, not people in a certain field.

[zarus tathra]

Just because someone is intelligent in one field does not make them intelligent in the other. You should trust people who have intelligent views, not people in a certain field.

Derp. But the thing is, logic is something that doesn't come naturally to people, and even people who are trained in "philosophical" logic lack the kind of rigor demanded by mathematics and physics. It's very rare for people to be both broad and precise without some kind of training in those fields. And that's the only kind of commentary I can accept.

[Sal1981]

But who would you trust to be able to decide who is and who is not allowed to become a politician?

Educators, psychologists and ultimately at the voting booth.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Kill the lawyers, who by the way are usually pretty well educated in the.....uhmm..law.  :-$

[Solitary]

Question all authority, including physicist, mathematicians, as well as all scientists!  There are many of them that support religious nonsense and are biased by it. As to experts in a field. I don't care how much a religious leader knows about religion and degrees they have in any subject, they are still idiots if they believe in Scripture as being factual. And when they are talking about any other field a logician or a person that is a genius will still be more reliable to what the truth is. An intelligent person out side his field of expertize will still be more likely correct than an expert, even in their field, when there are more than one hypothesis or theory. If you disagree, explain how Einstein or Bertrand Russell disagreed theologians that were experts in their field, and they were not but correct. Correct thinking and logic don't always give the correct answer to ethical and value judgment questions either. Should the United States and the Christian Right destroy all their real enemies or weaker primitive tribes to protect themselves and resources when it is logical if they think they are more valuable,for example.    Solitary

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Science is neither good nor bad. It depends on who has access to it to determine how it's to be used or not. The same holds true of technology or even 'faith' for that matter. Oh yes, faith is a commodity to be manipulated as well as science. I know of people with great math skills perfectly content with stealing every penny you have.  :-?

[SGOS]

I've decided that the only political thinkers and speakers that I'll give any credibility to are physicists and mathematicians.  

Politics would do well to incorporate science into its process.  But it doesn't.  That's what makes it politics.  Science is about discovery.  Politics is about bullshit.  It has hardly anything to do with science.  Politicians don't make decisions based on science.  They decide what bullshit people want, and then make up more bullshit.  Sometimes they consider economics, but they turn it into bullshit.

We need politics.  It is absolutely essential to our lives.  Science is nice and everything, but it doesn't lend itself to carefully organizing bullshit, which makes it mostly unusable in politics.

[zarus tathra]

I'm not saying that scientists are "good" people. I'm saying that scientists generally don't use terms if they don't have fairly precise, hardened definitions for them. You seem to have no idea how rare and invaluable this is in politics.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Politicians for the most part are lawyers and lawyers us precise language as well. Go get arrested and go to court someday and find out just how precise the language can be. It can be so precise it can be fatal.
This notion that scientists are all just wonderful people without nefarious agendas is nonsense. Science can be every bit as horrid as it can be great. Science is where we get all these wonderful tools of warfare and chemicals that burn through almost anything.
Science kills as many people as it helps.. The same can be said of lawyers too. Go get your sorry ass arrested and tell the police you're not talking till you have your scientist present.  :-k

[Insult to Rocks]

This notion that all politicians are selfish, evil, and stupid is ridiculous. Generalization of a group as disparate as politicians is bound to be inaccurate. Being smart isn't the only thing that is important to government. You also need to be a leader, and bring disparaging groups together. That often takes more than simple books smarts.