Hashtag Rationalia
 

Neil deGrasse Tyson has swizzled up a fun discussion on Twitter. He proposed a virtual country, Rationalia, that has a one line constitution. The fantasy constitution reads, "All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence."

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/neil...-of-government

What can go wrong with basing all policy on the weight of evidence?

In my limited experience I foresee one glaring problem with such an oversimplified system. To wit, if policy is based on evidence then the undesirable backlash is a black market on evidence.

Case in point.

One of my earliest debates on the internet was on the subject of land use. I live near Detroit and despise how we waste land. My sparring partner found data that suggested people are happier in Detroit than they are in an area with more structured land use such as Portland, OR. He won our debate IMO.

We had a perfectly rational debate and yet Detroit won over Portland as a good example of land use in that sample. Why?

This stuff is fun to think about.

How is "happiness" rated?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

You ran smack into the limits of rationality. Rationality works with facts and logic, measurements and observations. Rationality has NOTHING TO SAY about what sort of land use makes people happier. That is decided by people, based on their emotional reactions, which are based on SUBCONSCIOUS logic, that cannot be examined or corrected.

Any theory about what sort of land use is desirable is unreal, because it cannot be based on what makes people happy. What makes people happy cannot be accessed by conscious reason.

Ask Aristotle.

"Hence, if everyone has a natural right to the pursuit of happiness, and if that means that happiness must be attainable by all, then we know at once, do we not, that power over other men cannot be a part of human happiness -- for if it were, happiness would not be attainable by all. The pursuit of happiness must be co-operative, not competitive."

Interesting question.

Bigger is better. That seems to be the psychology of data.

Designers struggle with that psychology as they design user interfaces such as gauges in cars, graphs for their bosses, etc. As they design they know there are bigger questions that want to be answered.

When I attended law school I learned how much weight there is in wording of a jury question. I was taught that the best jury question is the one that gets the most votes. But what is actually best in the long run may well be independent of such an instant question. That is the narrow space that Neil deGrasse Tyson is dabbling in. I respect him for his courage.

The definition of pursuit is "an effort to secure or obtain, a quest".
Nothing in the word implies your desire must actually be attainable. Therefore I think Aristotle jumps the shark with his second "if".
The dogs pursue the mechanical rabbit around the track, but it is never obtained.

I was in Orlando, Florida when the rabbit track broke, and every single greyhound savaged the rabbit. The crowd was deliriously estactic, roaring with approval as each dog waited, and then had its way with the rabbit.

Happiness can only be attained if you let yourself be happy. Once you figure that part out, that you alone make yourself happy, then you realize you can be happy almost every day, and many times a day.

Some of our inate happiness makers conflict with others. We can do without the blood-sports ones, IMHO.

Having had, and returned, the unconditional love of a good, and very accomplished woman I found that it as impossible not to be happy.

Differently by different people.