As a thought experiment. How would a government of general scientists be any different than a government of general business people?
For example, in general, at least a government of scientists would have a better idea of how things work. And scientists have a habit of being critical (peer review) of other scientists even for being accidentally wrong.
Why wouldn't a majority vote for a generally science-based government? Because the majority are not scientists?
Why would a general meaning be about you? (unless you were scientifically illiterate).
Populations of people have varying personalities (e.g., ethics). Science would mean they were more correct (than business-minded people)
Never mind!
Again, I have no idea what you’re trying to say – and don’t really care tbh – you tagged/replied to me/my post.
About me? I asked if your reply was meant for me (meaning the post) and that I didn’t care which *hypothetical*. I didn’t mention science, business, or even government.
Stop spamming your naive ideas to me (and I’m an engineer so not exactly anti-science); people with bad intentions come from all backgrounds, as do incompetent leaders.
Ok, no problem. We are evidently not in the same "headspace" (at the moment).
Have a pleasant day \ evening, etc.
@Empiricism_Reloaded
Was this meant for me? I don’t see how that relates – you seem to have shoehorned in your cause – but they’d both make terrible governments.
I’d at least hope that your hypothetical government (I don’t care which; both/either) would have the sense to recruit those that do have experience in the fields they lack.
If a government or MP really wants to benefit people, it doesn’t matter what their background is; we need more variety than all PPE chancers on the make.