Convincing people your interpretation of reality exists is literally all that politics is.
What? No. No, no, you naive fool… many politicians, if not most, don’t believe most of what they’re selling, and don’t give a flying fuck about it.
They’ll sell whatever line the party they’re working for wants them to sell, and they’d just as happily sell the opposition party’s line if it paid better and they could switch without being called a turncoat.
Also, it’s not about convincing people about specific beliefs; most people are mostly already convinced of their worldviews and if they change them it won’t be because of some politician. It’s about convincing them, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the politician shares those beliefs, and will impose them on people who don’t if they vote for them.
despite being correct, science is also an interpretation of reality.
Again, no. Science (except for mathematics, but that’s it’s own thing) doesn’t and shouldn’t ever claim to be correct.
It’s the most accurate approximation we have so far of how nature works, but it’s constantly trying to achieve better approximations, and will happily throw away the old ones when it finds a better one.
It also should always make very clear that it’s an approximation or a description, not an interpretation. Science should always be objective, never subjective, and interpretations are by definition subjective.
They also have to continually convince politicians and other politically minded people to give them money, and risk having it taken away if their results are politically inconvenient.
Whether climate change is occurring, what damage it’s doing and what’s causing it are scientific questions. How to address it is a set of political questions: How do we get humanity to emit less greenhouse gases? How do we get countries on the same page? How do we make sure that the effects of these changes don’t increase global inequality?
The scientific questions have been answered very well, and are continuing to be answered in more detail all the time.
The response to the political questions has been an abject failure so far.
Science is only political because scientists have to continuously convince politicians reality exists.
It’s frustrating that something like climate change is even a political discussion at all. Don’t Look Up captured that frustration really well.
Convincing people your interpretation of reality exists is literally all that politics is.
Unfortunately, despite being correct, science is also an interpretation of reality.
What? No. No, no, you naive fool… many politicians, if not most, don’t believe most of what they’re selling, and don’t give a flying fuck about it.
They’ll sell whatever line the party they’re working for wants them to sell, and they’d just as happily sell the opposition party’s line if it paid better and they could switch without being called a turncoat.
Also, it’s not about convincing people about specific beliefs; most people are mostly already convinced of their worldviews and if they change them it won’t be because of some politician. It’s about convincing them, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the politician shares those beliefs, and will impose them on people who don’t if they vote for them.
Again, no. Science (except for mathematics, but that’s it’s own thing) doesn’t and shouldn’t ever claim to be correct.
It’s the most accurate approximation we have so far of how nature works, but it’s constantly trying to achieve better approximations, and will happily throw away the old ones when it finds a better one.
It also should always make very clear that it’s an approximation or a description, not an interpretation. Science should always be objective, never subjective, and interpretations are by definition subjective.
Convincing people is war. Exerting power is politics.
You can invent a vaccine, but getting people to take it is a different matter entirely and not just because of politicians.
Andrew Wakefield managed to fuck up people’s attitude towards vaccines quite well without politics.
Inserting things under people’s skin just freaks people out in general. There are so many reasons.
They also have to continually convince politicians and other politically minded people to give them money, and risk having it taken away if their results are politically inconvenient.
Whether climate change is occurring, what damage it’s doing and what’s causing it are scientific questions. How to address it is a set of political questions: How do we get humanity to emit less greenhouse gases? How do we get countries on the same page? How do we make sure that the effects of these changes don’t increase global inequality?
The scientific questions have been answered very well, and are continuing to be answered in more detail all the time.
The response to the political questions has been an abject failure so far.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
161st upvote