Often when I talk about political ideas I am really just talking about more science in government and a more knowledgeable public. Today I found an interview with Vern Ehlers (Republican Congressman) talking about just this. It can be found here and is worth a listen. He was the first physicist to be elected to Congress and in the interview talks about meeting many people who don’t know basic science and could do with more scientists in politics (what I would call technocrats) to help educate them all!
Now I call myself a technocrat, but is that really what I am? The media portrays technocrats as government bureaucrats, which is not what a technocrat is. One definition is someone with knowledge, expertise or skills in science, engineering or technology. Another is someone who believes in Technocracy. Is there another word for the opinions and beliefs I have?
Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints (Routledge, 1994). Now this sounds like the technocracy I signed up for! A lot of Technocracy’s more radical ideologies such as thermoeconomics and it’s complete lack of democracy are out of my scope but this scientism, this love for truth and rationality, is not only applicable but also very needed!
Going back to my post on a Constitutional Technocracy a fantastic point was put forward by LiberalConservativeThought, he talks about regular question sessions “where the democratically elected ministers from the government answer technical questions on their policies from the members of the upper house who have expertise in that area” – this alone gives a technocratic second chamber a fundamental reason for existing, especially if it was given important media time like Prime Minister’s Questions.
This almost Logical Positivism approach can be applied in many other ways, for example when the public sector is hiring it has to adhire to multiple negative regulation such as “do not discriminate against race, religion, disability, etc” but why not simply apply one positive regulation and say “Only hire people on the basis of merit” – In such a system meritocracy would, by it’s very nature, create true equality. But ofcourse the important implementation for this is to regulate old and new policies.
Democracy should answer to Science and Reason.