Can the scientific method be applied in choosing a candidate to be voted?

[cptn_star]

Lesser evil means less corrupt. How can you scientifically prove the corruption? Simply by using statistics

lesser evil may count to general appeal to the public but in the performance aspects, does the less evil candidate perform better? data collection through research comes in then keen observation on the data collected will go next..

[superkebot]

if one can answer estrada's popularity. I hope science will distance itself in the area of politics. Hitler's science lead to jew extermination.

[chad_tukes]

aren't polls scientific?

[rodsky]

Hitler's science lead to jew extermination.

A taxi driver forgot to give me change this morning as I went to work--since I conclude ALL taxi drivers are cheaters, I'm NEVER going to ride taxi's again!

-RODION

[shadesofpurple]

prolly science doesnt apply in choosing your so called candidates but probstat will do,

[rodsky]

prolly science doesnt apply in choosing your so called candidates but probstat will do,

Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistics is the science of making effective use of numerical data relating to groups of individuals or experiments. It deals with all aspects of this, including not only the collection, analysis and interpretation of such data, but also the planning of the collection of data, in terms of the design of surveys and experiments.

Ergo, that statement is a bit contradictory. It's like saying "Prolly you can't eat fruits, but an orange will do."

-RODION

[floppy]

We can put scale factors or "weights" on our criteria on determining which candidate is scientifically suitable for president. Think of it like judging a beauty pageant... 30% question and answer, 30% swim wear, 40% beauty [lol, sorry i don't know what other criteria are there for beauty pageants.. hehe]

1. Educational Background. A president should know how to run a country, do business, interact and communicate with other countries. The only way we can scientifically know this is through the candidate's educational background. Logically, we don't want a high school dropout running a country, right? Thus, a candidate with degree on economics, business, and the like should have an edge on this criteria.

2. Efficiency. On its simplest form it is equal to work done/time. And then we define work as projects done, laws passed, etc. This also presumes that a suitable candidate SHOULD have experience.

3. VISION. Criteria 1 and 2 only talks about what the candidate once was and what he has done in the past. Great scientists are not the ones who just follow the ideas of others, they are the ones that innovate, thinks outside the box. Similarly, we should pick a candidate that can innovate, has ideas to solve the country's problems. How to we determine this? Through the candidate's platforms... with this, we can have a picture what his administration will be.

After determining all factors/ criteria, we put "weights" on each and then score each candidate. The one with the highest score wins.

[vern]

It is foolish to apply science to something as unpredictable as humans. The worst and best of leaders do not come from a logical basis. Science would never have voted in Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy ... all great American presidents.

[NASYO]

aren't polls scientific?

yes it is..

numbers in fact.. but counting, woooohh..

OT

[kalanrakas]

Am I right that the data that you will collect and serve as bases for electing a candidate are the good and bad things he had done and, likewise, the decisions, he made in the past?

If that is the case, you eventually get to decide on the candidate whom you have determined to have done the most good deeds and decisions. "Good" is a qualifier that is present there. Hence, you are injecting morality in what is purportedly a scientific determination of the right candidate.

I don't think that morality is congruent with pure science.

Sure, morals and ethics may guide us on our decision to pursue or not to pursue human cloning or stem cell research but it does not contribute to the accuracy and correctness of the science involved. Rather, it can cause the science to be flawed as certain procedures are eschewed in preference to what are more "moral" or "ethical" procedures.

When "good" or "bad" comes into play in an equation, it is doubtful whether something scientific can result from it.

To illustrate the point in direct relation to politics, take Gibo, for example. Many believe that he is the most intelligent, the most competent and the one who has the education for the presidency, not to mention, the personality for it.

Now, most of those criteria are based on facts. However, many also among the same multitude who like him, are not keen on voting for him because of his association with a hated administration. Now, while that is also a fact, the reasons why the administration is hated are legion and many among those are plain and simple subjective dislike of the occupant of Malacañan.

My point is, while the scientific method may be applied in a human activity as subjective as choosing from among candidates, the outcome, and the entire methodology, would hardly be scientific. When bias is added to the formula early on, the result becomes tainted and, thus, is not science.

In the same manner that while scientific measurements may be applied in painting and architecture (divine proportion, Fibonacci numbers), such are not the only determinant of what is beautiful to the eyes of the beholder.

Finally, while it took me a torrent of words to express my view that the scientific method is inadequate in determining the right candidate as politics calls for the injection of morals and ethics, it only took a few for vern to express exactly the same position.

Which points me to an art I should learn. Brevity.