/politics/ - News & Politics

if the position is related to their qualifications, yes. some scientists are very very dumb outside their field. IQ is not necessarily universal.

But you have people like Noam Chomsky who are brilliant in many fields.

> His work has influenced a wide range of domains, including artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science, logic, mathematics, music theory and analysis, political science, programming language theory, and psychology

People like him should have power, but they don't, because they never seek it.

>>5787

If you want to see just how corruptible technocracy would be, look at Ben Stein, a Ph.D. "Economist" who doesn't understand the 101 level basics and has been wrong in every assertion he's spoken on air for about a decade.

Harvard "MBA"s are supposedly eminently qualified to run businesses and were the ones responsible for crashing the global economy, primarily because the entirety of harvard's business and econ department have been taken over by globalist special interests and are, at best, indoctrination centers, and, at worst, putting out a cynical 5th column out to deliberately hand the world's wealth to Larry Lessig's "lesters"

>>5787

These people are very smart, but know very little about running a country. It is a classic example of intellectuals putting influence outside of their fields simply because they have a PhD.

The best system would be to replace politicians with a monarch raised from birth to know how to rule. For while the politician knows he will control the country for only a short time and this must utilise as many resources as possible for his agenda as opposed to leave them for the next administration, a king will make long term decisions, knowing that he is deciding the future of himself and his children.

>>5787

Scientists and Engineers aren't guaranteed to be qualified outside of their field

In many cases they're absolutely shitty at anything outside of their field

>>5795

>corruptible technocracy would be

This is another good point, our society praises the intellectuals without realizing how corrupt their sphere is. Academia is rife with it, especially with Professors sending their experiments off to friends to be checked off and accepted rather than actually have it be run by someone to double check it

As long as "social sciences" don't count.

That issue alone will make or break this system.

>>5834

>Academia is rife with [corruption], especially with Professors sending their experiments off to friends to be checked off and accepted rather than actually have it be run by someone to double check it

How do you know this?

That's a broad and incorrect statement, OP.

Technocracy is furthering technology to the point where politicians are unnecessary, or if you're a transhumanist, in the ending of all government via technology.

Everyone knows that intelligent people don't make good politicians. Look at Ben Carson.

>>5842

I only worked closely with a professor on a dozen occasions and even I know this, anon.

Shit, my coms friend was telling me about how her professor falsified her results for the sole purpose of getting more funding.

It's common knowledge.

Technocracy is retarded because it implicitly furthers the idea that the government should be involved in regulating science, business, and therefore our daily lives.

>>5792

>noam chomsky

>ultraleftist

>worthy of being a leader

>>>/leftypol/

You have to go back.

>>5842

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-campbell-the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

This, and I have family in academia, and work with academia far too closely to not notice it. It's very much a scratch my back and I'll scratch yours environment among the various institutions across the world.

You'd cry if you went into various labs and realized how often professors and doctors will falsify data, especially if their reputation rides on it.

That sounds amazing, how do we make this happen?