Link: If you don't already read Bad Science

Manfred

So there's this blog called Bad Science, consisting mostly of the articles that medical doctor Ben Goldacre writes for the Guardian. It's about pseudoscience, medicine and medical research. And also awesome.

The recent article was a wonderful bit of emotional whiplash, and is about as subject I think is useful to keep in mind when contemplating research. But really, I recommend reading everything.

http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/existential-angst-about-the-bigger-picture/

Also, the second-most-recent article, which should appeal to LW-types:

http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/we-should-so-blatantly-do-more-randomised-trials-on-policy/

The recent article was a wonderful bit of emotional whiplash, and is about as subject I think is useful to keep in mind when contemplating research. But really, I recommend reading everything.

http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/existential-angst-about-the-bigger-picture/

Also, the second-most-recent article, which should appeal to LW-types:

http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/we-should-so-blatantly-do-more-randomised-trials-on-policy/

I've been seeing this meme a lot lately, that the PRC leadership are engineers. It seems to be used in an implicit sense of 'they are practically scientists, and will be cool & rational & open to broader application of the scientific method (whatever their other failings), and we can generally expect rational actions of them'.

This bothers me.

There's the obvious point that even if they are rational actors, they may share few of our values and their rationality be a bad thing from our point of view; it's a common interpretation of the Party that it is ruthless, murderous, and determined to keep China intact and under its control (and there are racial undertones here of Han supremacy).
It's not clear at all that engineering is associated with the better parts of the scientific tradition and with rationality in general, given the connection between engineers and terrorism (and creationism is mentioned).

I don't look at Chinese politics and immediately think rational. I don't see or expect much rationality from Chinese leaders with respect to Taiwan for instance. But why are so many of China's top leaders educated as engineers? I don't know what process they go through to gain political power in China, but it sure seems to lead to different demographics than for US politicians.

One piece of Chinese policy that seems pretty smart/rational is their long term infrastructure projects. Even if keeping the Chinese Communist Party in power is their first priority... (read more)

3scientism15y

I would seek out information on what the PRC leadership actually thinks and does. What you find in the media is extremely misleading when it comes to the modern Chinese Communist Party (contrary to popular belief it has undergone considerable political reform as well as economic reform). Indeed, the PRC actually does already roll out policy in an experimental way before making it widespread. I recommend reading Mark Leonard's What Does China Think? for a short, popular introduction. David Shambaugh's China's Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation is a scholarly account that gives an idea of what's going on in China's many think tanks. Note: I'm not condoning the Chinese Communist Party's actions or recommending their political system. It's just one area where I've done some research and discovered the truth is very, very far from what's ordinarily presented. The PRC leadership have, as far as I can tell, at least been trying to build a meritocratic political system in which there are no general elections but a great deal of experimentation in ways to elicit and respond to feedback from the citizenship. Whether they've succeeded or not is another matter. At the very least they've managed to create a system where power is exchanged peacefully and the leadership has a relatively high level of education.

17

Link: If you don't already read Bad Science

17

17

17

Link: If you don't already read Bad Science

17

17