Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In business we call people who know a lot about a specific topic as 'subject matter experts' or SME's. They're very important for managers to make tactical decisions and directors to make strategic decisions.
Is it different for science and politicians?
Hey, I was a SME for most of my career, in three separate disciplines.
In every case, during my career, I reported to a manager with a science education.
One of my SME areas was economics. The manager had a science education, but not much economics or computer modeling. That was difficult, both for him and me!!!
I remember one time, I was running the computer models and the manager was waiting on the NUMBER for an important meeting.
After several runs I had a pretty good idea of the number so I gave him the mid-point and the range within the confidence interval. I told him the decision was too important to leave to a computer model, but he would be fine picking a number within that range and I would write the justification for him that would be acceptable to the politicians.
Even with his science background he had a hard time accepting a number as a range. By that time in his career he was much more of a "political" manager than science based professional.
The politicians were much worse.
Without exception, scientifically illiterate. Worse yet, most had never taken a class in economics or sociology.
For most politicians, it IS all about the DEAL. They are looking for solution that will move the issue off the table without hurting their political standing in the community. That, if you think about it is probably the reason we are in such a pickle these days.
We do need to elect better, more informed politicians. We elect people in this country on their political views, but seldom question their ability to run government.
We can start by making it illegal for a lawyer to be elected to any office. Judges should be political appointments made by non-lawyers.
You become your profession.
Being a SME in three separate areas, it was amazing how my "thinking" and approach to problem solving changed simply by the job I was doing.
Lawyers because of their training, should be disqualified from holding political office.
Hey, I was a SME for most of my career, in three separate disciplines.
In every case, during my career, I reported to a manager with a science education.
One of my SME areas was economics. The manager had a science education, but not much economics or computer modeling. That was difficult, both for him and me!!!
I remember one time, I was running the computer models and the manager was waiting on the NUMBER for an important meeting.
After several runs I had a pretty good idea of the number so I gave him the mid-point and the range within the confidence interval. I told him the decision was too important to leave to a computer model, but he would be fine picking a number within that range and I would write the justification for him that would be acceptable to the politicians.
Even with his science background he had a hard time accepting a number as a range. By that time in his career he was much more of a "political" manager than science based professional.
The politicians were much worse.
Without exception, scientifically illiterate. Worse yet, most had never taken a class in economics or sociology.
For most politicians, it IS all about the DEAL. They are looking for solution that will move the issue off the table without hurting their political standing in the community. That, if you think about it is probably the reason we are in such a pickle these days.
We do need to elect better, more informed politicians. We elect people in this country on their political views, but seldom question their ability to run government.
We can start by making it illegal for a lawyer to be elected to any office. Judges should be political appointments made by non-lawyers.
You become your profession.
Being a SME in three separate areas, it was amazing how my "thinking" and approach to problem solving changed simply by the job I was doing.
Lawyers because of their training, should be disqualified from holding political office.
Your example also highlights another difference between science and today's politics. Science has a big focus on understanding and handling uncertainty. Whereas politics and politicians want certainty.
That is partly the fault of politicians, but also partly human nature of those who elect the politicians. For example the best forecast for job creation, based on a politician's policies, may show the likely outcome to be something between 1% reduction and 5% increase in jobs, with a 2% point estimate. But no politician is going to give a speech saying "I can most likely give you something between a 1% reduction and 4% increase in jobs." They will say "I promise you a 5% increase in jobs." And a politician saying the latter is more likely to be elected than one saying the former, so the electorate has part of the blame.
I think the world will be a much better place if people become comfortable with uncertainty, but maybe human nature opposes that.
Scientific study of nature establishes, within some error-bounds, relationships of cause and effect. From those relationships, recommendations can be made. The recommendation is, "If you want Outcome A, then the most likely course to be successful, is Action B".
Politics on the other hand is the art of persuading masses of people, marshalling them towards some collective action, such as paying more taxes or going to war or living a certain way. Suppose that some outcome is desired. Along comes science, recommending what's to be done, to attain that outcome. But then we examine these recommendations and decide that they're too costly or otherwise unpalatable. It's not that the science is wrong, or that we deny it, or mistrust its recommendations. It's that we've done a cost-benefit assessment, and have decided politically that the outcome isn't worth the effort.
There are also those of us who integrated many different science areas to build a system. So there are scientists whose task is to combine numerous disciplines into a single project. Called system engineers.
It is an interesting skill. You need to know a bit about a number of disciplines. I often had a scientist give me a couple of half days of education and then read the literature. But it is actually easy to become smart about a very narrow area. Many of the scientists were not fond of this as I could capably pass myself off as a practitioner in the desired area..
Good point.
I have in-depth, specialized knowledge in several areas, but I have a broad education in a wide variety of areas. If I require more knowledge in any particular area for one reason or another, it is relatively easy for me to locate the necessary information and rapidly assimilate it for my needs. This was an exceptionally useful skill in my former occupation(s).
System engineers... ah yes, I know them well. The engineering version of 'jack of all trades, master at none". My youngest son is a Electrical Engineer by education and a systems engineer for Lockheed.
Pure science is the science of numbers. Pure politics is what?
Religion is basically the combination of politics and spirituality and eventually becomes highly corrupted, as all power systems do. Science mixed with politics ends up the same way especially when speculation gets involved. When science and specifically scientific consensus is being used to dictate policy, how could it not become corrupted? Scientists are people and are subject to coercion, bribery, blackmail and peer pressure just like any other humans are.
Conservative: “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”
Scientific Method: “a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”
If said hypothesis is introducing anything not already part of existing traditional conditions, institutions, etc., there is conflict.
Conservative: “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”
Scientific Method: “a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”
If said hypothesis is introducing anything not already part of existing traditional conditions, institutions, etc., there is conflict.
If said hypothesis is not introducing anything not already part of existing traditional conditions, institutions, etc., there is a much better chance it won't be published and if it does it won't be cited.
This is one of the corrosive influences on certain branches of science.
There is a lot more data available now than even the experts can deal with in many fields... Often there is enough for people on any side of a political/scientific crossover discussion event to "cite their sources", particularly if they are willing to contort the implications of said studies.
This can lead to a paradoxical degredation of the discourse from an abundance of available data....
Don't think it's really a net negative overall given the overwhelming value of having more information available but it's something to be aware of
Ive wondered about this before as well...historically science and govt DO NOT agree on much, but in the past, it was much more significant, the church had a lot to do with issues as well. We are still at that stage to some extent, but its more hidden today, the church is not as vocal as they were and they tend to side with science, which is really odd!
Both religion and science are in the business of 'understanding' things... not through knowledge, but by seeking. Governments (all) on the other hand ,it's about how to apply it's authority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
