Earlier I talked about how great it would be to have a lie detector that really actually works, presumably based on brain imaging rather than the misleading indicators that current useless polygraph tests are based on. This would certainly be of particular utility in the upcoming US presidential election: both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are prime candidates for having to run this very sort of gauntlet and many other politicians nationally and globally should be subjected to it as well. Definitive discrediting of a given politician in this fashion could conceivably tarnish their image so thoroughly that there would be no choice but for them either to reform, very seriously, or drop out and let more honest actors run the show.
But that technology isn't quite here yet. In the mean time, one might consider how the increasing proliferation of data and the means to analyze those data could reign in corruption. It's nice having things like Politifact but the problem is that, in some sense, all these different fact-checking measures are only as good as people's willingness to accept them. That willingness is very often lacking currently. But I think that substantial advances in the creation and analysis of very large bodies of data will go a long way towards making science much more than a "candle in the dark" as it has been said, but rather a fiercely brilliant beacon which anyone will be forced to acknowledge; even someone who shuts their eyes up tight will see their eyelids lit up red and know it's there and won't be able to deny its presence.
And really this is an issue that goes well beyond corruption as such. Too many people want to turn away from that light in general. In the future, this is something they may start to find increasingly difficult. Arguably this process is already underway. I think forcing people to acknowledge the truth is a good thing, even if they have to be dragged towards it kicking and screaming. There is honestly quite a lot to look forward to, and I can't help but think of an old advertisement for Hollerith punch-card machines that spoke very powerfully to me:
I really think it can be done.
But that technology isn't quite here yet. In the mean time, one might consider how the increasing proliferation of data and the means to analyze those data could reign in corruption. It's nice having things like Politifact but the problem is that, in some sense, all these different fact-checking measures are only as good as people's willingness to accept them. That willingness is very often lacking currently. But I think that substantial advances in the creation and analysis of very large bodies of data will go a long way towards making science much more than a "candle in the dark" as it has been said, but rather a fiercely brilliant beacon which anyone will be forced to acknowledge; even someone who shuts their eyes up tight will see their eyelids lit up red and know it's there and won't be able to deny its presence.
And really this is an issue that goes well beyond corruption as such. Too many people want to turn away from that light in general. In the future, this is something they may start to find increasingly difficult. Arguably this process is already underway. I think forcing people to acknowledge the truth is a good thing, even if they have to be dragged towards it kicking and screaming. There is honestly quite a lot to look forward to, and I can't help but think of an old advertisement for Hollerith punch-card machines that spoke very powerfully to me:
I really think it can be done.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/28KqBdb
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire