The fewer people that vote, the better?

[Skalm]

It's not a literal "ballot" vote like you're thinking. But it is a majority conscientious decision.

Easy, an example showcased studied herd of deer. They watched as the deer began turning their heads and ears towards watering holes. Time after time again, when each study group got to the 51% mark of total deer in the herd turning their attention towards the watering holes and keeping ears pointed/fixated upon it, they all began moving towards them as a whole. usually the Alpha male doesn't even notice until they start moving.

The conclusion was a proverbial "vote" of "all clear". Enough deer listening and deciding its safe to go to the watering hole allowed them to saftely move as a pack. More eyes and ears open for predators, more chance of survival. If deer detected a predator, they would not venture to the hole and their "vote" is counted.

Schools of fish work this way too, as well as flying migratory flocks of birds. You think there's one alpha-male leading that massive swarm of crows, telling them where and when to land and if it's all safe to do so? :P

Alright. But maybe my idea of migration is different than yours? A group of deer moving from one watering spot to another, or one grass field to another imo is not migration...

My idea of migration is more along the lines of Deer living up in mountains during summer/spring and moving to the valleys below for fall/winter. Which this is not a 'lets majority decide to go' type of situation. This is an if we don't go, we will freeze to death and die...

Basically moving to a new area to live in, not just a new spot to eat/drink.

What you described imo appears to be something that is just a normal daily routine, not really migration.

It is interesting that they do not move until there is a +50% consensus that it's safe, which I never knew they did. But I would not really call that voting either. This is more of a...herd mentality. Lets all be sheep...baah...baah

And all it takes is one deer or most any animal to look at something, and a chain reaction will occur because all the rest want to know what is going on...

[Felya]

Yes I care a great deal. I'd also not make any particular test fail determinant for the rest of anyone's life. You should always have the chance to take the test again until you pass.

So many in this country don't care enough to bother showing up to vote. Maybe if they had to earn it they might see fit to show up every couple years.

I think those who are willing to lose their right to vote, simply to limit other's right to vote are worse than those who don't vote. If you cared about your right to vote, you wouldn't be arguing in favor of creating limits on said right.

[belfpala]

Why should A be any difference just because they believe science is true? A's understanding is no more accurate than B's, who we reject outright as being antiscience.

If A is willing to revise the interpretation y to interpretation w when actual science comes back with x(revised), then A is doing it right.

[belfpala]

The point of this is to say that because some people may incorrectly understand what is said by science while supporting science is not an argument against placing heightened importance on science any more than it would be to place less importance on science because people incorrectly understood science and decided it's false.

Ahh, gotcha. I misread what you were meaning the first time.

It's kind of the joke... Are eggs good for us or bad for us this year?

[Kaleredar]

I wouldn't push so far as to call A antiscience without knowing whether that is or isn't the case, but it's irrelevant to the point that what A says is no more a representation of what science says than what B says, who we dismiss without hesitation as misrepresenting science. The point of this is to say that because some people may incorrectly understand what is said by science while supporting science is not an argument against placing heightened importance on science any more than it would be to place less importance on science because people incorrectly understood science and decided it's false.

Science can't "say" anything that's just or unjust because you'd first have to scientifically quantify what just and unjust are, which is impossible.

Science can say what is true and what is false, or, at least, provide us with such according to our understanding of it at the time.

But we as human beings who care about one another and who live in a society led by the prospects of just and unjust cannot live or be lead off of science alone, in practice OR in principle.

Before Hitler started spouting Eugenics and soured it for people in the US, there were many "scientists" in the western world who espoused the idea of Eugenics and getting rid of "bad genes" all based on "scientific principles." There was even a supreme court decision that ruled it was constitutional for mental hospitals to forcibly sterilize their patients at will.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The entire problem with assuming people are smart enough to vote for the important things is assuming they know what they're talking about. Most people don't. And while extremist views on EITHER side of the aisle (left or right) are swayed by their news media outlet of choice, there are a far larger number of Americans who tune into and trust Faux News than MSNBC. The center, the reality suffers because of extremists who believe their news outlet of choice is telling the truth and not manipulating them to think a certain way.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Science can't "say" anything that's just or unjust because you'd first have to scientifically quantify what just and unjust are, which is impossible.

Science can say what is true and what is false, or, at least, provide us with such according to our understanding of it at the time.

But we as human beings who care about one another and who live in a society led by the prospects of just and unjust cannot live or be lead off of science alone, in practice OR in principle.

Before Hitler started spouting Eugenics and soured it for people in the US, there were many "scientists" in the western world who espoused the idea of Eugenics and getting rid of "bad genes" all based on "scientific principles." There was even a supreme court decision that ruled it was constitutional for mental hospitals to forcibly sterilize their patients at will.

Nice Godwin.

Eugenics isn't a bad idea in theory, getting rid of genes that cause diseases. What is bad is that people (like Hitler) who have tried to attempt eugenics have tried to weed out superficial features like skin color, eye color, hair color, etc. And really, Hitler's eugenic cleansing was just a cover story for what was really economic issues that Germany was facing after WW1. One of the biggest pieces of propaganda spread by Germany was that the lazy Jewish leeches on society were using welfare of the state to fund their easy-going lifestyles and mooch off the hard working German tax payers. Sounds AWFULLY familiar.

Science may not have any moral direction per se, but we can base our morals off facts rather than arbitrary subjective feelings, ancient religious texts and tradition. Saying that we should keep with old moral values because it's tradition is absurd.

[Kaleredar]

I do not recall saying science could say things about issues that fall outside the realm of science. I do recall responding to a criticism of placing emphasis on science based on the assumption that people will misinterpret scientific findings.

They might not "misunderstand it;" they may simply use science to try and market what they're saying is just.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I do not recall saying science could say things about issues that fall outside the realm of science. I do recall responding to a criticism of placing emphasis on science based on the assumption that people will misinterpret scientific findings.

It's like when Fox plays a story that says "Global warming disproven!" and it's really just a study that has inconclusive findings, or one that claims to disprove science, but is reported by Fox first then rejected by peer review to ever be published because it was found to have massaged numbers. That's happened several times now actually. Papers that aren't even published are sent to Faux and by the time the paper is rejected because it was found to have faulty findings, the damage to the minds of the public has already been done.

[Kaleredar]

Nice Godwin.

Eugenics isn't a bad idea in theory, getting rid of genes that cause diseases. What is bad is that people (like Hitler) who have tried to attempt eugenics have tried to weed out superficial features like skin color, eye color, hair color, etc. And really, Hitler's eugenic cleansing was just a cover story for what was really economic issues that Germany was facing after WW1. One of the biggest pieces of propaganda spread by Germany was that the lazy Jewish leeches on society were using welfare of the state to fund their easy-going lifestyles and mooch off the hard working German tax payers. Sounds AWFULLY familiar.

Sounds like you really didn't actually get what I was saying, seeing as "Hitler" was an addendum to what I was saying, and not the main focus. We, as a global society, have decided that forced sterilization accounts for a Crime against humanity.

Science may not have any moral direction per se, but we can base our morals off facts rather than arbitrary subjective feelings, ancient religious texts and tradition. Saying that we should keep with old moral values because it's tradition is absurd.

What do "facts," as in, quantifiable true and false, hold about just and unjust? Specifically?

There must be a moral base that people agree upon for the foundation of "right" and "wrong." You can't quantify your way to it and say "this will statistically do the most right" because you've already posited what "right" is in that situation. I don't normally post meme images, but I believe this sentiment explains it nicely:

[Dezerte]

There must be a moral base that people agree upon for the foundation of "right" and "wrong." You can't quantify your way to it and say "this will statistically do the most right" because you've already posited what "right" is in that situation.

We can use the innate goodness of human well-being as "right", and the experience of pain as "wrong". As far as I know, all humans are wired the same when it comes to pain & pleasure. This could work as a solid basis for morality, one which is based on intrinsic truths.

[Angella]

I think those who are willing to lose their right to vote, simply to limit other's right to vote are worse than those who don't vote. If you cared about your right to vote, you wouldn't be arguing in favor of creating limits on said right.

That's pretty disingenuous. We have millions of people in this country (and outside of it) that can't vote now whether it be felony convictions or illegal alien status or quota restrictions on legal immigration. Asking people to earn the right to vote by passing the same test we force legal immigrants to pass isn't that high a standard.

It certainly doesn't follow that by arguing for such a thing that I don't care about my right to vote. Crap logic and crap position.

[Deleted]

Look - there's nobody more dedicated to me in believing in the power of science. But leadership is NOT a role for purely Science leading. Science is, in its ultimate form, nothing but data. Pure data. It's both its beauty and ugliness. It's beauty as what is truthful is "truth" - but it's Ugly when you use that "truth" to bend it towards your own personal agendas and beliefs via selectively using parts of science while quietly ignoring other aspects of science.

Look at how America is believing in all this "Alpha male" self-interest crap from Darwin and wolves, and yet COMPLETELY ignore all the other findings of Darwin and other mammalian species. About how many societies of animals actually have a voting system of migration (Deer, Zebras, Dolphins, ect) - that it's not the alpha male that decides these things. They ignore how on the Galapagos Islands the FIRST thing Darwin noted was that all the animals did not run from humans. The Tortoises, Birds, lizards did not shrink from each other or humans. The reason they discovered is that they did not PREY on each other. They fed on the vegetation around the islands or the fish in the nearby seas. Again, all science - but THAT science is pushed to the side by other people who use SELECTIVE science to explain it, then causing people to say "I'm a dick because it's Human nature to be an Alpha". No, it's not...

The other problem with science-led is there is no room for morality. Science cannot measure "morals". Morality is a human creation and societal/cultural creation - and a Leader MUST be able to pair solid moral judgement ALONG with science. Too many people use science today as a means to explain why they're acting like Assholes. "Oh, we MUST have sweatshops otherwise the societies will fall into chaos! Our SCIENCE studies prove this!"... as if it's the ONLY method available.

Science is neither just nor unjust, sam with the data. It's how we use it that may be flawed but following the science and having the entire sciences world looking in to eachother might not be perfect since we have yet to solve everything but I will choose to follow it 10/10 then ungrounded thoughts from the 1800 centuary like now. If one side is 51% to be right and one is 49% we have to pick the 51% every timf.

[Throne]

No one is no way to fundamentally prove someone is 'correct' on an issue. Just because you think someone is ignorant doesn't mean they are.

With that, we still have to make decisions. The only way to to decide is by majority vote, by everyone who will be affected. Thus every citizen deserves a vote, regardless of what you think of them.