Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 5:18 pm
1) Is there a better future through science?
"Better" is a value judgment, and values are determined by historical, biological, and environmental influences. But if we define "better" as a future where humanity has fewer preventable catastrophes, greater health, and more stability, then yes—science, as a method of uncovering reality, is a tool that naturally pushes in that direction. It is not a matter of choice; science progresses as an inevitable consequence of human cognition interacting with its environment. The accumulation of knowledge and technological advancement is as inevitable as erosion shaping a landscape over time.
2) Are we ultimately deterministically locked into whatever the future delivers to us?
Yes. The future is the result of a vast chain of prior causes extending from the Big Bang to now. There is no "locking into" anything—it’s simply the natural unfolding of physical events governed by the conservation laws and the four fundamental interactions. That doesn’t mean we know what the future holds, only that whatever happens was always going to happen exactly as it does.
3) Can greater scientific literacy lead to good (or at least better) decision making?
Again, defining "better" is key, but if we’re asking whether scientific literacy results in decisions that align more closely with reality, the answer is yes. An understanding of cause and effect, probability, and empirical evidence reduces reliance on superstition and biases. However, the level of scientific literacy in a society is also determined by prior causes—education systems, political structures, economic conditions—so individuals don't "choose" to become scientifically literate; they are shaped into it.
4) Is decision making based on science ultimately "undemocratic" if not everyone is privy to the science behind the decisions to be made?
This is an interesting question because it assumes democracy is an inherent good. But democracy, like anything else, is just another emergent phenomenon resulting from material conditions and historical contingencies. Science-based decision-making is not inherently undemocratic any more than engineering a bridge with physics in mind is undemocratic. The real issue is access to education—if a society lacks scientific literacy, decisions made by experts might feel authoritarian, but that’s an illusion caused by unequal knowledge distribution, not an inherent problem with science itself.
5) What ought to be the role of the scientist in a representative democracy? Is it as an advisor or is it as a decision maker (maybe either or none of the above)?
Neither, in an ideal deterministic system. Scientists are simply individuals processing reality in a way that allows them to make better predictions. The issue is that politics is not about truth; it's about power. The deterministic view would suggest that if societies were structured rationally, governance would be handled through empirical, evidence-based decision-making, with scientists playing a central role. But, given historical and economic conditions, scientists are often sidelined in favor of demagogues and power brokers because human societies evolved to favor social cohesion over truth.
6) With the advent of computers and the Internet, is direct democracy now possible and/or desirable?
It’s possible in a technical sense, but whether it emerges depends on the same deterministic forces as everything else. Societies do not "choose" governance models—they transition into them through necessity and pressure. Right now, those in power benefit from controlled narratives and gatekeeping, so direct democracy would be a threat to the current power structures. But in the long term, if technological systems become sophisticated enough to filter out misinformation and manipulation, we could see more direct participation in governance—again, not as a "choice," but as an inevitable shift caused by changing conditions.
So, in summary: The future is determined. Science is an emergent consequence of deterministic progress. The role of scientists depends on the structures that shape governance. And democracy, like everything else, is just another outcome of historical causality, not an autonomous decision made by free agents.