Is it actually a good thing to trust the institutions?

[teo123]

I've posted this on TFES forum, but I think I might have a better discussion here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70940.0

I am going to tell you a story from my experience. I think there have been many cases in which good people trusting institutions did bad things to me because of that, but this one is certainly true.
My parents got divorced when I was little and they hate each other very much. In Croatia, there is an institution called "socijalna skrb" (I am not willing to find an English equivalent) that's supposed to help the poor and stop family violence. One day, while I was in school, "socijalna skrb" phoned my unemployed father to urgently come to their office. He hoped they would finally give him financial help so he came there. They didn't give him financial help. Instead, they "informed" him about me having written bad things about him in a letter to the "socijalna skrb" in a near-by town. They allegedly came to know that from my mathematics professor. My father and I were arguing all evening about that supposed letter, he did not believe me I didn't actually write any letter to the "socijalna skrb". After hours of arguing, he hit me in the face. He had never done that before. And he almost certainly wouldn't have done that if he hadn't trusted "socijalna skrb". A few days later I asked my mathematics professor about that supposed letter. Needless to say, he just stared at me blindly. Again, this is a true story, it happened recently. And I am by no means the only victim. "Socijalna skrb" has been sued countless times, but every time the court reinterprets the case again and again until it looks like it's not the fault of the institution. "Socijalna skrb" is supposed to end the family violence, when they are ones who cause the family violence. Its employees are in a delusion that they are helping the poor, and they just make things worse. Croatia is a very democratic and a very liberal country with relatively low corruption, yet the institutions still find a way to destroy peoples lives. I can imagine it can only be worse elsewhere.
So, let's hear your thoughts about trusting the institutions!

To me it seems like trusting the institutions is a similar fallacy to a conspiracy theory. Both of them ascribe people superhuman powers. Except that conspiracy theories ascribe people superhuman powers to do bad things and trusting the institutions ascribes people superhuman powers to do good.

[brimstoneSalad]

To me it seems like trusting the institutions is a similar fallacy to a conspiracy theory. Both of them ascribe people superhuman powers. Except that conspiracy theories ascribe people superhuman powers to do bad things and trusting the institutions ascribes people superhuman powers to do good.

It's true that a lot of government is incompetent, which applies to the "soft" sciences (soft meaning they're not really science, or not reliably so).
The wonderful thing about real science (hard science) is that it controls for bias. The terrible thing about politics is often that it's only magnified bias with no evidence.

Look at the current U.S. administration. While all of the scientific bodies (even the government founded scientific bodies, which use real science) accept climate change and say it's a problem, the administration denies it.

With respect to your problem, things relating to social welfare and psychology are often seen as more of an "art", which means the institutions' policies place a lot of trust in individual opinions (which means individual biases and mistakes).

There is a new movement for evidence based government, but it's growing pretty slowly. In the past, this has only applied to scientific bodies and not social welfare. It seems people thought that social welfare was a human endeavor and science didn't have anything to say about it, or that doing "experiments" on people or society was wrong.

Today, we're starting to see a few countries lead the way by implementing policies experimentally, and looking more at the unintended consequences.
The real harm comes with politicians assuming policies are good and implementing them without testing them, and the same applies to "socijalna skrb". It sounds like they have good intentions, but very bad intervention policies which do not take into account unintended consequences. They give human beings with their flaws and biases too much control.

You should trust institutions of hard science, but when it comes to the competence of soft-"science" based institutions, a measure of well intentioned incompetence and bias is usually a safe bet.

[teo123]

I think you aren't right. I think that, whenever the government tries to base itself on science, it fails to do so. Look at the historical examples when the government tried to solve ecological problems using science. The Love Channel (when they tried to solve the disposal of the chemical waste better than a private company, and only made things worse), the Great Leap Forward Famine (when they killed thousands of birds to stop them from eating out rice, but they caused an explosion of the population of insects which made things even worse)…
Think of it this way: science is very clear that the world would be better if we all were vegetarians. Yet, do you think it would be a good thing to pass a law that would force everyone to be vegetarian? I don't think so.
Also, I believe that the governments are worse at recognizing pseudoscience than an average person is. An average person would probably recognize that the polygraph or the studies favoring the minimum wage are pseudoscience, yet the government apparently doesn't.
The only characteristic you need to have to be a successful politician is to be able to enjoy long and boring discussions, and I hate to think those people have any power. The solution is not to have a government that tries to base itself on science, the solution is to get rid of the government altogether.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think you aren't right. I think that, whenever the government tries to base itself on science, it fails to do so. Look at the historical examples when the government tried to solve ecological problems using science. The Love Channel (when they tried to solve the disposal of the chemical waste better than a private company, and only made things worse), the Great Leap Forward Famine (when they killed thousands of birds to stop them from eating out rice, but they caused an explosion of the population of insects which made things even worse)…

That's not science. Science is doing various small scale tests to see if things actually work, not making a guess based on speculation and applying it on a wide-scale.

Think of it this way: science is very clear that the world would be better if we all were vegetarians. Yet, do you think it would be a good thing to pass a law that would force everyone to be vegetarian? I don't think so.

Science would say, "try it in this small town, and see how it works"
Then we'd see if it resulted in a black market like alcohol prohibition did.

The soda tax worked kind of like that. It started small scale, we saw it generated revenue and helped public health, now it's spreading.

Also, I believe that the governments are worse at recognizing pseudoscience than an average person is.

Politicians are very bad at it, correct. I don't know if they're worse than the average person, but they're definitely more sure of themselves.
That's why you can't leave it to politicians.

An average person would probably recognize that the polygraph or the studies favoring the minimum wage are pseudoscience, yet the government apparently doesn't.

Because they have political agendas. It's kind of how religious people will find "evidence" everywhere to prove god where there is none.
Conservatives like conservative pseudoscience, liberals like liberal pseudoscience.

Science is about eliminating bias, but unfortunately politics is all about bias. You basically have to get rid of politicians to do real science in government.

The solution is not to have a government that tries to base itself on science, the solution is to get rid of the government altogether.

Or get rid of politicians. You can do that and keep government.

[teo123]

Science does the experiment only if it is ethical to do one. Having a government that forces non-consenting people to participate into potentially hazardous experiments is anything but ethical.
If a policy is good, you don't have to force people to participate in it.

As someone who is very liberal, I would ask you what you think is the liberal pseudoscience? Liberalism appears to be completely in line with the mainstream social sciences. It values free trade, it's against policies such as minimum wage and price controls…

[brimstoneSalad]

Science does the experiment only if it is ethical to do one. Having a government that forces non-consenting people to participate into potentially hazardous experiments is anything but ethical.

I'm talking about experiments like Basic income, or a Soda tax.

For example:
The government finds a small town, and gives everybody $500 a month, no matter what, and looks at the results.
They then compare that to a town in which a social program receives the same amount of money (population * $500).

Same with the Soda tax.
Apply the soda tax in one area, and see if obesity and disease reduce. Maybe it will, maybe it's useless and people just fill the void with other junk food.
Maybe it costs too much to enforce, or maybe it's very economical with a high degree of compliance and generates a lot of revenue.

It's not "spray chemical X on the population, see if they become more compliant" kind of experimentation.

If a policy is good, you don't have to force people to participate in it.

The point is you don't know if a policy is good until you experiment with it.

We didn't know if Basic income, or Soda tax, were good until we tried them. Now we know they're good.

As someone who is very liberal, I would ask you what you think is the liberal pseudoscience?

Anti-nuclear power nonsense, excessive pro-solar/wind propaganda (these things are good sometimes, but they have limited application: not everything is a nail looking for a solar hammer), some bad economic theories (like raising the minimum wage, which has had limited evidence and mixed results), "intersectional theory"/"Critical race theory" etc.

Liberalism appears to be completely in line with the mainstream social sciences.

Social science is mostly pseudoscience; it's a soft science. There's occasional good science in or connected to those fields, but a lot of garbage too, so you have to look at it more critically than a hard science like physics or chemistry or medicine/health.

It values free trade, it's against policies such as minimum wage and price controls…

Classical liberalism, like libertarianism does. This is distinct from modern liberalism.
Of course, they take it too far too: sometimes trade restriction, wage policies, and price controls are good. The thing is that before we implement policies like that we have to look at the effects and do tests, which government rarely does because it's driven on ideology and faith rather than evidence.

An ideal government starts from the position of classical liberalism and only adds policies when they have legitimate scientific evidence of efficacy.
However, it must also be conservative (in the true sense), and not remove policies that already exist carelessly. Both to add or remove policies we need real impact studies to look at possible unintended consequences.

[teo123]

OK, so, who should be doing those experiments? How would you make sure those experiments aren't dangerous?
Scientists aren't immune to being crazy. Would you like Stephen Wolfram or Gerard 't Hooft (theoretical physicists, one of whom is a Nobel prize winner, who try to convince people that the world is a computer simulation) to be on power? Would you like Kary Mullis (a Nobel-prize winner biologist that promotes the abuse of LSD) to be on power?
Social scientists are probably even more likely to break mad, and they would then certainly do hazardous experiments.
I agree it's better to have scientists on power rather than politicians, but why would you need a government at all?

[brimstoneSalad]

OK, so, who should be doing those experiments? How would you make sure those experiments aren't dangerous?

You convene a jury of random people, present the proposition, and they can decide if the experiment should go ahead.
The scientists are like the lawyers here, and they present their case and the plan for the research.

I agree it's better to have scientists on power rather than politicians, but why would you need a government at all?

Government does many important things. The default state of human nature is tribal; small groups in perpetual warfare. From small "savage" tribes to fractured kingdoms as in medieval times. Don't believe the myth of the peaceful savage. Law and order prevents conflicts between tribes or families by settling disputes without the perpetual back and forth of blood for blood.
Beyond that, public education, oversight for industries to prevent pollution and abuse (particularly in medicine, the FDA and equivalents are essential), and certain social programs which relieve human suffering (you don't want people in your society who have nothing to lose).

[teo123]

The default state of human nature is tribal; small groups in perpetual warfare.

Let's for the sake of argument say that you are right, that human beings are evil by nature. So, you want a government that's made of people who are naturally evil. How does that make any sense? Power corrupts, it doesn't make people better.
And that's so obviously wrong. Primitive tribes aren't even remotely all xenophobic. There are such tribes which don't even have words for weapons and wars.
Human beings are by nature altruistic. Selfishness is a learned behaviour. If it's not, how it is that neither Proto-Indo-European nor Proto-Semitic nor Proto-Uralic have words related to private ownership?

Law and order prevents conflicts between tribes or families by settling disputes without the perpetual back and forth of blood for blood.

First of all, governments have killed way more people than murders have. The Holocaust, the Mao's Great Famine... These couldn't have happened without a government.
Secondly, is there any actual evidence that making murders illegal actually makes them happen less often? I mean, if murder is illegal, murders are put in a place not in which they rehabilitate from what they have done, but from which they return with even greater psychological problems (which made them murder in the first place). If murder wasn't illegal, there would probably be cheap weapons that kill painlessly as well as institutions that try to actually help the murders.
What if it's that every concievable law, no matter how reasonable it seems at first, harms the society in the long run?
What do you think would happen if female genital mutilation wasn't illegal? Now it's done in a dark alley with a rusty knife with no anaesthesia, and causes great psychological trauma. If it wasn't illegal, maybe it would be done by a medical professional with proper anaesthesia, and would in fact make the girls who undergo it happier (since spirituality is correlated with happiness more than sexual pleasure is). What if that's the right way of thinking about laws?

public education

And countries with public education tend to have lower literacy. Around 40% of the USA population is illiterate.

oversight for industries to prevent pollution

Which causes monopolies by harming the small buisnesses more than the large ones.

particularly in medicine, the FDA and equivalents are essential

Maybe not. There are studies that show that FDA kills more people than it saves by delaying life-saving medicines to get on the market.

you don't want people in your society who have nothing to lose

Liberty is more important than money. If you have liberty, the money comes. During the Great Chinese Famine, people had money, but they weren't free to produce and buy food.

[brimstoneSalad]

Let's for the sake of argument say that you are right, that human beings are evil by nature. So, you want a government that's made of people who are naturally evil. How does that make any sense? Power corrupts, it doesn't make people better.

I'm not saying people are evil by nature, people are tribal. Government creates larger tribes and stability within those. We need to move toward a global tribe so we can stop fighting among ourselves, and use those systems to settle internal disputes peacefully.

Republic government with elected offices and checks and balances in power is the most stable and least corruptible form we've found so far.
Democracy only works as well as people are educated, though.

Dividing power and keeping politicians accountable seems to reduce corruption.
But I'm talking about jury based politics, or "deliberative democracy" which uses random people who aren't held in positions of power. It helps solve the problem of ignorance in democracy by highly informing a few random people about an issue and then letting them vote on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

And that's so obviously wrong. Primitive tribes aren't even remotely all xenophobic. There are such tribes which don't even have words for weapons and wars.

Back to your old flat-earth ways I see. Well, I tried.

Human beings are by nature altruistic. Selfishness is a learned behaviour. If it's not, how it is that neither Proto-Indo-European nor Proto-Semitic nor Proto-Uralic have words related to private ownership?

That's bullshit. Where are you getting this?

First of all, governments have killed way more people than murders have.

False.

The Holocaust, the Mao's Great Famine...

Yes, even taking into account those deaths.

Read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010

These couldn't have happened without a government.

Genocide is a daily occurrence without government.

You've gone off the wagon again. I don't have the patience to do this with you TWICE.
Read Pinker's book. If you have more questions after that I can answer them. You spat out the Flat-Earth Kool-Aid just to drink the Anarchist Kool-Aid.

Secondly, is there any actual evidence that making murders illegal actually makes them happen less often?

Courts help them happen less often. Without a third party to intervene, each family takes vengeance on the other in an endless feud. It's not so much about the murderer, it's about the retribution. Think Capulet and Montague.

I mean, if murder is illegal, murders are put in a place not in which they rehabilitate from what they have done, but from which they return with even greater psychological problems (which made them murder in the first place).

The prison system has issues, but it's insane to conclude that murder should be legal because of those issues.

What if it's that every concievable law, no matter how reasonable it seems at first, harms the society in the long run?

Then you need to provide evidence of that.
It's the person who wants to CHANGE society who needs evidence, both people wanting NEW laws, and people wanting to remove old ones.

What do you think would happen if female genital mutilation wasn't illegal? Now it's done in a dark alley with a rusty knife with no anaesthesia, and causes great psychological trauma. If it wasn't illegal, maybe it would be done by a medical professional with proper anaesthesia, and would in fact make the girls who undergo it happier (since spirituality is correlated with happiness more than sexual pleasure is). What if that's the right way of thinking about laws?

Just provide evidence of it. You're running based on wild speculation just like you did with flat-earth.
MAYBE, but maybe not. There are certain medical and cultural cases where this may be true (it's more credible than the argument that murder should be legal) but you still have to provide evidence.

public education

And countries with public education tend to have lower literacy. Around 40% of the USA population is illiterate.

You're just regurgitating anti-government propaganda now. 40% of the adult U.S. population is not illiterate. It's around 14%, 21% in addition to that just read poorly.

The U.S. public education system is quite poor, because it relies on local property taxes and in poor areas it does not serve the students well. Other countries with better public education systems (better funded) have far better literacy rates. There are structural problems with implementation of some public education, but it's still an essential service, it just need to be improved.

oversight for industries to prevent pollution

Which causes monopolies by harming the small buisnesses more than the large ones.

No, monopolies are outlawed. That's another important government function.
Biological pollution resulted in plagues, and soot and other air pollution resulted in mass deaths through lung disease before the modern equivalents of the EPA. China is suffering those effects now and is working hard to stop air pollution in cities because of the massive death toll it has.

particularly in medicine, the FDA and equivalents are essential

Maybe not. There are studies that show that FDA kills more people than it saves by delaying life-saving medicines to get on the market.

More bullshit.
The FDA prevents dangerous medications from getting on the market that do nothing (unless people like Sanders have their ways). The pre-FDA era was one predominated by snake oil.
People die due to delays, but without the FDA most would die anyway because they would never find the right medication to begin with if it weren't for that oversight which improves the signal to noise ratio for actual medication. You can't look at biased assessments of the "harm" without weighing it against benefits.

you don't want people in your society who have nothing to lose

Liberty is more important than money. If you have liberty, the money comes.

This is what's called dogma.

During the Great Chinese Famine, people had money, but they weren't free to produce and buy food.

That's a problem too, but having liberty doesn't magically create prosperity.

You're trying to take me on a Gish gallop here, and I don't have time for this bullshit. Every claim you spout without evidence takes me longer to debunk, and I'm not playing this game.

If you're going to make another claim, or argue ANY of these points, you need to supply credible evidence.