Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried
- This topic has 140 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
"Such decisions don't have to be left to 'experts' but can be taken by democratically elected councils able to examine the matter in more detail before coming to a decision."For me, this sounds as though we would pretty much leave some decisions to "experts" (albeit non-priviliged ones that could be recalled at any time).I mean I would probably vote for someone I believed to be knowledgable on the subject.And isn't that what an expert is?What other useful merit besides expertize can one consider when electing someone?
Following is a discussion on the page titled: Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!Not necessarily. If, for instance, the councils or committees were chosen by lot (as are juries in common law countries and as suggested in the book by Van Reybrouck reviewed in the February issue)) then they would be composed of a cross-section of the population who would then have the time to study the various aspects of a question in more detail.If it comes to elections I can think of a number of reasons for voting for somebody other than that they are an "expert" of some sort, e.g. sensible, level-headed, able to understand a problem, etc.
The points being made on this thread about experts and democracy are precisely the points that I've made, about the power of 'science' and the need for a democratic epistemology.
I remember some channel 4 show, many years ago: a mock Parliament. One episodes, the ordinary members of the public in the chamber started out overwhelmingly supporting the death penalty, they debated it a while, took evidence from expert witnesses, and by the end of the programme, had changed their minds, nad overwhelmingly voted it down. Part of the point of democracy is to force experts to explain their ideas to idots like me (hence why I opposed changes in the co-op to get rid of the lay board in favour of technical experts running the show).
Young Master Smeet wrote:Part of the point of democracy is to force experts to explain their ideas to idots like me (hence why I opposed changes in the co-op to get rid of the lay board in favour of technical experts running the show).[my bold]We're singing from the same hymn-sheet, YMS, if you really believe what you've written here.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I've been trying to tell you that for months.But what happens when we don't agree with the experts?First of all, how would that 'disagreement' be politically expressed, if not by a vote?And if the expert was disagreed with, what happens next for the expert? Surely the expert is removed from any position of 'their expertise' (which the vote has shown to be nothing of the sort), and replaced by an expert who can explain their area of 'expertise'?These political issues about 'power' and 'expertise' are the ones that emerge from your post above.I've been trying to tell you that for years.Any 'expert' can only be an 'expert-for-us'; any 'expertise' can only be 'expertise-for-us'.There is no politically neutral 'expert/ise' who/which is above democratic control.It's an elite bourgeois ideology that claims that there is – a ruling class idea.
Well, to answer your questions:1) The expert could be ignored, or action taken that does not accord with the expert's advice.2) Sacking experts is poor form, just because on balance a group of people disagrees with them, they go back to their life, and can come back and give evidence again on another occaision. It would be for learned societies/free associations of peers to pass further comment on their all round competence. After all, the parliament/committee/meeting/Wappentake, etc. would call it's witnesses based on ecommendations.3) Democracy means the right of minorities to try and become majorities.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, to answer your questions:1) The expert could be ignored, or action taken that does not accord with the expert's advice.2) Sacking experts is poor form, just because on balance a group of people disagrees with them, they go back to their life, and can come back and give evidence again on another occaision. It would be for learned societies/free associations of peers to pass further comment on their all round competence. After all, the parliament/committee/meeting/Wappentake, etc. would call it's witnesses based on ecommendations.3) Democracy means the right of minorities to try and become majorities.Once again, YMS, your views expressed here are very similar to mine.Perhaps I'd prod you further on just who politically controls 'learned societies' and 'recommendations'.You seem, to me, to be not taking your views to their logical political/social conclusions.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, to answer your questions:1) The expert could be ignored, or action taken that does not accord with the expert's advice.2) Sacking experts is poor form, just because on balance a group of people disagrees with them, they go back to their life, and can come back and give evidence again on another occaision. It would be for learned societies/free associations of peers to pass further comment on their all round competence. After all, the parliament/committee/meeting/Wappentake, etc. would call it's witnesses based on ecommendations.3) Democracy means the right of minorities to try and become majorities.Once again, YMS, your views expressed here are very similar to mine.Perhaps I'd prod you further on just who politically controls 'learned societies' and 'recommendations'.You seem, to me, to be not taking your views to their logical political/social conclusions.
My two cents is the associated voluntary producers, composed of the generalists and the specialists are a logical part of the decision making process. The "political control" is embedded in the actual process where a systematic project management approach enables the panel to scrutinise, evaluate and assess the proposal in front of it. So it can reach a conclusion and outcome based on the satisfaction of human needs.
LBird wrote:Once again, YMS, your views expressed here are very similar to mine.Perhaps I'd prod you further on just who politically controls 'learned societies' and 'recommendations'.You seem, to me, to be not taking your views to their logical political/social conclusions.We've covered this before: learned societies would be free associations, organised democratically by their members, within a framework set by the whole of society (e.g. forbidding racism, unemocratic structures, sexual segragation, etc.) Recommendations could either stem from the sociees (plural) themselves, or from members of the wappentake who are already aware of a particular viewpoint and want it to be heard out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.