The Problem with Politicians Using the Word “Science” by Oliver DeMille

One big issue we are facing right now is the weakness of technocracy as a form of government. The United States has increasingly become a technocracy since World War II, and today the technocratic parts of government threaten the democratic and constitutional parts. Technocracy, which is government by experts, has two main problems:

1-When the society is divided into the expert class on the one hand (experts in technology, law, medicine, science, finance, coding, etc.) and the rest of the people on the other, democracy is naturally weakened. Technocracy cares more about the expertise and specialized knowledge of experts than the desires and goals of the masses. The people vote, but government officials are constantly bombarded by the recommendations of experts above the wishes of the citizens.

2-Technocracy tends toward force over freedom, for the simple fact that non-expert government officials are dependent on expert/specialist advice on many details that are only understood by advanced experts. For example, consider a mayor or governor deciding whether to mandate the wearing of masks during a pandemic like the coronavirus. He or she is told by some experts that masks will help slow the spread of the disease, by some experts that masks won’t help at all, by some experts that not enforcing the wearing of masks is tantamount to killing thousands or millions of people, and by some experts that wearing masks will actually hurt a lot of citizens and decrease their health.

The challenge is very real. Very few mayors or governors are medical doctors, much less advanced experts on infectious diseases—and none are experts on the coronavirus because it is new and there are no true experts on it yet. It hasn’t been around long enough or studied in true depth. All suggestions by “experts” in such a situation are at best educated guesses, and different experts claim very different things about masks and the virus. Any official who claims to be following “science” in such a decision either doesn’t know what science is or is probably overstating what science actually knows about the virus.
The mayor or governor in this situation has two major problems. First, the top medical experts are split into two main groups on the issue: those who claim to be sure that masks will work and those who either claim masks won’t work or say it isn’t yet proven whether or not masks will work. Second, the top legal experts are also split: some claim the pandemic is an emergency which gives the mayor/governor the authority to decree mask wearing without legislative or judicial action, and others say that the official must follow the Constitution even during emergencies or that any legitimate authority to act unilaterally in an emergency expires after two weeks or some similar reasonable term, and certainly after many months.
In a democratic republic with effective separations of power and checks and balances, the mayor/governor has to let the legislative branch take the lead in questions like mask requirements, and also let the judicial take the lead in issues regarding the implementation of penalties to those who violate any mask laws duly established by the legislative branch. The people have a huge say in this because the legislative is elected by the voters.
In contrast, in a technocracy the experts overwhelmingly tend to answer directly to the executive branch, and the executive isn’t himself/herself an expert on most of the issues that arise. He is instead, as mentioned above, dependent on experts, and different experts of the same prestige, credibility and experience often differ in their conclusions about the “science.”
Officials who believe more in democracy than in experts will tend to choose freedom solutions, even where some experts are suggesting heavy-handed force-based policies. Officials who believe more in experts than in democracy and freedom (or who like to exert force and power more than they should) will tend to select force-based policies, even where a lot of the voters consider this bad leadership.
We live during an era of history when the democratic principle of allowing voters to choose is being attacked and eroded by the technocratic goal of rule by elites. Technocracy frequently claims “science” as its guide, while the democratic principle is based on freedom, rights, and the choice of the people. Expect the months and years ahead to bring increasing attacks on the ideas of democracy, voting rights, and free choice—all in the name of “safety” and too often “science.”
In this trend, the experts who adopt strict scientific rigor and only say something is proven or scientific when it has been thoroughly and conclusively studied will nearly always be rejected in favor of less scientific “scientists” who promote conclusions that force-based government officials can use to justify top-down agendas. Ironically, we are entering an era where mediocre scientists and experts will usually be promoted and quoted more than the best, most scientifically sound scientists and experts.
Solution: Be very skeptical when any government official claims to be following “the science” or “the experts.” Always do your own research on the different conclusions by various top scientists and experts, since any new scientific question will nearly always have top experts on multiple sides of each issue. This is how science works. Those truly dedicated to the best science and expertise will seldom claim to “know the science” or “follow science” or “stick with science”—since actual science includes many experts who differ greatly during ongoing research, until each question has been thoroughly studied and a consensus of nearly all experts is reached. This always takes time, a lot more time than politicians want to give it. Politicians and officials claiming “science” are almost always speaking in patently unscientific terms. And social media platforms that refuse to openly and equally air all views and sides of scientific debates are actually falsifying science.
Citizens must understand this.