The Need For Radical Scientific Centrism

The Far Right
-Attacks empiricism, the scientific method, and scientific conclusions when it is inconvenient to its social or economic agenda.
-Harbors a deep anti-intellectualism and fear of change that makes it inimical to science.

The Far Left
-Attacks empiricism and seeks to curtail lines of scientific query that challenge its closely held positions.
-Harbors dangerous pseudo-intellectual modes of thinking that make it inimical to science.

As far as we need to concern ourselves the horseshoe theory of politics is correct. The only safe political position that doesn't curtail scientific progress is one of radical centrism in which neither the far Left nor the far Right can develop enough momentum to derail progress.

>kekistani flag
>rick and Morty cancer
>le science!!!

Are you... triggered?

>Attacks empiricism, the scientific method, and scientific conclusions when it is inconvenient to its social or economic agenda.

It's mostly religious people that do this. Especially American evangelical types.

>-Harbors a deep anti-intellectualism and fear of change that makes it inimical to science.

Again, more of a religious trait. It just so happens religious people fall on the right end of the spectrum more often.

Also centrism is retarded and your memeflag is too.

saged

that >156625542
No prophet is wecomed in his home..

>science can determine moral values

Science and faith are two different things, obviously.

>failing to see that you can practically use science to back up any claim you like.

Remember guys, both sides are equally anti science. You see climate change denial, evolution denial, and round earth denial on BOTH sides.

We should meet in the middle, and after we do I'll take a step to the right and explain to you why we need to meet in the middle.

I favor the Left slightly for those reasons, but at a certain point in the Left-wing spectrum you run into the anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, and anti-alternative energy crowd to name a few.

Okay, now name some radical centrist political parties and politicians, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

To this point they don't exist.

yet you took the time to get of the fence to write some dumb shit

While there are delusions on both sides of the political spectrum and the denial of scientific truths, the idea of a purely 'scientific' political party is ridiculous in the extreme because much of political differences is the playing out of different value-systems. Such systems emerge out of philosophy, not science, and any attempt at a 'scientific' value-set usually just ends in some asshole claiming his values 'are scientific' because they're derived in part from some aspect of Nature and covering any claims of subjectivity or questioning of his axioms as 'unscientific'.

In practice the 'scientific' party would just be a party who wants more scientific funding, and to give imaginary scientific credence to their chosen ideology, whether that ideology be communism, fascism, libertarianism, natsoc, utilititarian, kantian, or so non.

Then this is about as much of a solution as those "An-cap" LARPers writing fan fiction. You have to learn political science if you already know regular science. I could give a solution through populism, I mean that's how the right got past the neocons.

The more likely solution is to do what the neocons did and shop around a set of policy solutions until you find a moderate party who takes them up as part of their platform.

Populism and science are at odds user. Populism is about as anti-science as it gets.

Scary

Science is a methodology for learning about the world through observation and experimentation, and based on the principles of uniformity, causality, and empiricism. It doesn't favor or disfavor any political system, except insofar as it denounces certain delusions that may be part of a political platform.

Holy shit you're fucking dumb

I'd say populism has certain delusions baked in.

This is a bait post, but I'll explain why exactly centrism is so idiotic.
You have no principles, no ideas, no strong beliefs. All you can do is point out the faults of other's views, and principles, and beliefs. Centrists suffer from a horrible delusion that deep down, everyone is just as detached and """rational""" as them. I respect a radical communist over a centrist, because as despicable as the commie's goals are, he at least knows what he's fighting for.

Such as?

You do not know the geopolitical way of how people get elected into power, if you want forceful solutions to your problems then read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. If a scientific politician realizes this philosophy then anything is possible.

>I don't care if someone's beliefs are wrong as long as they sincerely believe it!

I hope you know that you're part of the problem of feels > reals.

You're drunk if you think that is what he is saying.

/thread

Should be pretty self-evident unless you're a populist, in which case they aren't evident to you at all.

Fair enough.

Nothing is self-evident in science. Explain your view.

Yeah because doing everything with green pastel is so illuminating, and not having "strong believes (basically being an idiot)" and using many colors on different parts of picture is soo "beta". Retarded redneck... "believes" "ideas" < real world

Look, political ideologies are rather like products that you are trying to sell. They have to look good to your target market. If you don't have any ideology, how do you expect to appeal to anyone?

btw. our goal is normal state and not some "ideals" filled shitty part of history again.

>((scientist)) sell their soul faster than any politician for that sweet grant money
>((scientist)) always think they're right even when they're wrong
As a researcher for a uni I can clearly say that this is the most fucked up idea ever.
Though I can see it as a 3rd branch of congress made up of autistic people who's sole goal is logical and ruthless implementation of the rule of law

F(l)aggot

>radical centrism

so fascism/natsoc/the third way

sounds good my friend

It can. Ethics are derived from the laws of physics, which is why morality is universal.
>pro tip: God made the laws of physics

>(((biased studies))) are made and sold as ultimate truth
>hey, why is this topic never retested again, I guess it is bs
>OH NO YOU ARE AGAINST SCIENCE

If I have to choose between societal and scientific progress, I would choose societal progress every time. For example, the ability to genetically modify embryos means nothing compared to the further death of family values it might bring, as families stop having natural offspring.
Currently, science is advancing so rapidly that we might not be able to control it in the near future (10-20 years). AI is already difficult to manage right now.

>principles of uniformity, causality, and empiricism. It doesn't favor or disfavor any political system
unless you are ostracized by the peers for defying the norm, then you can just put your empiricism and rationally deep in your ass

you can't derive an ought from an is

christ you atheists haven't progressed in a decade.

Science shows that we evolved to engage in self-deception and to deceive others. Why should scientific progress be put above all else? Science regularly ignores what is best for humanity. What argument are you even making?
>muh anti-intellectual
Stop projecting your own stupidity on me.

>centrism
So last year, we /liberalists/ now. Feels good to be on the RIGHT side of history. Too bad for you, cuck. If you only read more locke you could be a true individualist like the rest of us.

Fascism is radical centrism. Just that it's the authoritarian kind. Now what, memeflag nigger?

There is a reason why reason has been called a whore. Science does not deal in value systems. It is a method, a tool. It is amoral. God lives OP.