I'm a bit more cynical perhaps though I'd say more realistic. A consideration of the evolution of homo "sapiens" indicates, despite an almost universal belief in the power of our personal intellect, that we humans have a dismal capacity for evidence-based, rational thinking. It was never a particularly adaptive trait. No one had time to do science in the Pleistocene. What we are really good at is narratives; simple, memorable, stories that tell the tribe what to do. Politics is dominated by this kind of quick tribal thinking. Everyone claims the evidence supports their world view but it's more a case of their world view selecting the evidence.
Richard Feynman's statement, “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong” doesn't actually in politics. It's a massive waste. -Jim On 11 September 2013 12:35, Kim Holburn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2013/Sep/11, at 9:09 AM, Jim Birch wrote: > > > There's a reasonable case for making voting more complex to decrease the > > number of idiots who vote. I'm thinking a set of basic science and maths > > questions would be a good start. :) > > In general, I think that would be a dangerous path, excluding people from > voting, just like when a member of parliament suggests it, but it makes me > think. It's a pity we can't vote in specialists. For instance a > parliamentary scientist, I think they have enough lawyers and business > people, engineer, medical expert, mathematician etc. > > -- > Kim Holburn > IT Network & Security Consultant > T: +61 2 61402408 M: +61 404072753 > mailto:[email protected] aim://kimholburn > skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
