That is all policies and political structures are testable and tested to see their effect on those three (or other suggested) factors. If a policy doesn’t reasonably work then it’s simply not continually employed. I’m curious to see what factors others think ought to be used.
It seems most political systems now were built without science in mind and utilize it as an afterthought to help develop legitimacy for policies individuals want. Generally politics across countries seems deeply emotionally driven and not fact driven. That is people have a feeling that an idea is a good idea and then they cobble together whatever they can to support that point without any unified measure of good or better. Ideally it ought to be the other way around, fact or evidence informed policy generation.
That’s not a philosophical framework, it’s a moral stance. Philosophy is about how we interpret the world. This is why you ironically are retreating into abstraction while accusing me of doing so, when I’ve done no such thing. I’m not arguing faith over facts, I’m arguing that the way we interpret facts is based on our world outlook. By denying world outlooks exist, you let your subconscious world outlook determine it for you.
You can say it isn’t but science is a philosophical framework and science with the application of measurably increasing human wellbeing is even more so. I’m not sure which philosophy will change facts around physiological wellbeing like starvation, lack of access to basic necessities, measurable cognitive health and so on. You can be of any political affiliation yet reality will still be there waiting for you.
Science is not a philosophical framework, and you’re now describing a moralistic reasoning for it, not a world outlook. Philosophy changes how we view the origin and causes of starvation, lack of access to basic necessities, and more. The philosophy you seem to be pushing is a vulgar approach to empiricism, rather than a more accurate dialectical materialist philosophy.
Here’s an example. Do you believe historical change is primarily driven by a development of ideas, or material conditions?
Once again you can say it isn’t but it indeed very much is a philosophical framework stemming from the philosophical foundations of logic and reason. Is it better to have a particular outlook on starvation or to actively be ending it through the most optimal means via evidence informed planning and practices? Reality doesn’t care what we think about it. You can take any angle you want on it but it’ll be there as it is.
As for change its always been guns, germs and steel. The philosophy you’re speaking of was an inefficient middleman towards change and development. If for instance a society follows a diety who says cleanliness is holy and they were more clean aka more biologically fit then they were accidentally discovering something true which could have been directly discovered via science. Them having that faith helped but not as much as having a framework for determining facts.
You’re abstracting the problem of denying the influence of how we view the world on how we view results of science, which is ironically enough a metaphysical error. It’s of course better to be actively ending starvation, but that wasn’t the question. The way we interpret facts determines how we go about ending starvation. Of course reality doesn’t care about what we think of it, but the way we interact back with reality certainly does!
As for the question, you dodged it. The answer is that the development of history is a result in shifting material conditions, which changes how we think and reshape the world. Like it or not, religion was in fact early science. Science itself is not a philosophy, it’s how we understand the world. What you are grasping at is a vulgar materialist conception of science at best, but this misses how change and development actually occur, and results in errors by abstraction.
This is the reason world outlook is important, you’re assuming you already have the correct world outlook while refusing to grapple with the fact that you have one. It’s Schrödinger’s philosophy.
I mean yeah if we viewed starvation as some uncontrollable demonic force of the body then that would change things but would that be better or worse than the scientific approach? Maybe you have an example to better hit home the point you’re getting at.
All forms or attempts of understanding reality aren’t early science as in they weren’t employing the scientific method in full but observation, testing, and measuring are basic aspects of being alive and aware. I know my nose is on my face through observation, testing, and measurement.
I’m aware reality can be strange, there’s a plethora of epistemological arguments to show one the limits of science, but we’re not talking about what lies beyond measure and testing or at least I’m not. There’s lots of philosophical ideas about things we can not measure or test. Once again what does not appreciably effect reality measurably is worth awareness but not as much as what can be measured and directly influenced.
I wouldn’t suggest one use science to attempt to understand epistemology but I would suggest it for methodically increasing societal wellbeing. The view one takes may change their behavior but it won’t change physics. They can believe they can fly unassisted but will fall to their death all the same when leaping from a building.
You’re still not getting it, both are “scientific approaches.” What you are describing as science is merely science with a mechanistic materialist outlook, one that relies on vulgar empiricism and removes the room for logical analysis of what has been empirically studied. Your philosophy underlining your science is better than religious science, but inferior to dialectical materialist science. It’s all science, yours is just incomplete for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses of it.
You skipped giving an example. What tangible real world examples do you have to back up your claims? You seem well convinced so you must have many good examples to support your case where material science failed at increasing human wellbeing while dialectic material science produced a better outcome.
Fair enough. Mechanistic materialism does not understand change or development properly. When taken as a social science, this manifedtd in the form of liberalism. Trying to reform and fix a system that cannot be fixed, because it is necessarily trending in a definite direction, towards centralization and monopoly. Trying to means-test welfare fixes does not address the concrete problems with imperialism and late-stage capitalism.
The dialectical materialist approach can more accurately identify how we got here, where we are heading, and how we can best steer this in our own interests. Socialism becomes not just an answer because someone designed it, as the Utopians tried, but because it is the logical next step in production, moving from market-based distribution to planned economy.