/pol/ ponders the life of a scientist

The problem is that is has been tested. Who enforces the process and makes sure decisions are made on body of evidence? Who arbitrates and reviews decisions to decide they are made in fact and not emotion? What are the facts being considered? Using mechanical or insect like utilitarian focus we could look only at an objective cost and measurable benefit of things- but how do we weight a metric such as minorities like the disabled, and the benefit to them against the cost to all other groups? How do we factor in intangibles such as human desire? How do we make sure the people governed by this system are content with its actions, or at least themselves hold to only rational analysis of fact? How do we reconcile human natures and differences, and the subjective nature of truth which can be influenced by culture and other factors of perception? For example: how much money, how big of a home, does a person NEED before it’s rational to take the extra and give it to those in greater need?

The values are key. I ended on a question about taking from those with less need and giving to those who need more- however determining need is already a quagmire- and who says it is supported by evidence that that is the “best” way? Strict capitalism and other philosophies favor a system where those most able earn what is there’s by virtue, those unable take their “rightful place” or die. In fact we can provide far more tangible evidence that society benefits from simply eliminating groups and individuals who are less productive or disruptive to an established order based on “norms.” The only really arguments against such actions are philosophical or emotional, and carry cultural bias. I’m not arguing for genocide, I’m saying that a purely evidence based system either doesn’t allow for incorporating human values, or is inherently screwed by human values and thus doesn’t exist as a purely evidence based system.