[Mind's Eye] Re: Why defend corrupt democracy?

I'll come and have a look Nanook. It's pleasing that some of us care
about what is going on. I feel democracy has passed, like education,
to Doublespeak. I never got on with Bellow's prose but was once
almost in the position of one of his protagonists in Bucharest. I
believe much of the energy needed to put things right has been wasted
by glib assertions that what we have is so much better than communist
dictatorship or tin-pot juntas. I find philosophy in the area arid,
often demonstrating a total inability to think outside of stereotypes
(Kant is the classic) or admit to obvious facts concerning ignorance
and corruption that we have to address.

On Jul 4, 9:21 pm, TheRealNanook <nan...@a3society.org> wrote:
> Many good points in this discussion so far. Let me jumping back to the
> initial question: "I have never seen science as anything to do with
> democracy - democracy is a form of government I despise...".
>
> I think there is a way to find value in democracy, as related to
> science. But it's not in its current form, for sure.  First, start
> with #ornamentalmind's first "conception" of democracy. That is, "the
> public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the
> management of their own affairs and the means of information are open
> and free."  This immediately supports #contemplative's view, that
> "ignorant" people get to have a say as well.  And, of course, it also
> describes how our current system is a failure. Why? Because, modern
> science is NOT a good example of democratic self-governance. Modern
> science is steered by politics through the control of research
> funding.
>
> This brings up a point that #comtemplative presented, "I may be
> ignorant, but I will not be owned! (at least not on paper)  :-) "
> This is a very typical "western" display of independence. It is a
> characteristic of the Tea Party, for example. But it has a VERY
> serious flaw! It fails to acknowledge the complexity of modern life.
> In a scantly populated world of farmers, everyone could pretty much do
> what they wanted. But in an overpopulated, resource limited society,
> "blind" independence leads directly to anarchy and violence as people
> struggle for survival. Recognizing this, "to secure ... Rights,
> Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
> the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." So, in order to apply this concept to
> science, we need to address each of the related principles. This could
> be a fun exercise. But, in short, for this discussion, let me just
> list a few changes that I would make.
>
> In the initial question, #archytas states, "The only non-arbitrary way
> to defend judgments concerning research agendas in the absence of
> absolute standards is through democratic means..." So, why hasn't
> society searched for some "absolutes"? And if we don't find those,
> then what about some collective preferences?
>
> In fact, society has actually done a lot of this. We do so much
> medical research because people have collectively stated they want
> that. I'd include things like space, environment and weather research
> in such a list. What I think is missing is providing an larger
> reaching structure to guide science, and making the "guidance" process
> both transparent and inclusive (ignorant people included : - ) ).
>
> BUT! That's the problem we have with our CURRENT form of democracy as
> a whole. It's not transparent because it's not being implemented
> anywhere near close to its ideals. In Greece, the democracy that
> became the initial model only lasted about 30 years, during the rein
> of Pericles. Even during that short period, the philosophers realized
> the theoretical goals had failed. Instead of a "democracy", meaning
> rule by the people, what had actually occurred was an "aristocracy",
> meaning rule by a few rich people who were able to sway the votes of
> the assembly. When new external stresses arose ( i.e. War ), that
> would not permit the time and inefficiency of democracy, the society
> reverted to a monarchy. As the environment collapses around us, our
> civilization will also face such time pressures. Something will
> change, that's for sure.
>
> ( Anyone who wants to see a new form of democracy that doesn't have
> most of the current problems, check out my website ( A3society.org ).
> And no, it's not a direct internet voting scheme, or a
> representational scheme like we have, or a mixture of these. A lot of
> basics need to change. )