RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $4200Goal: $6000


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
It doesn't stop
at the water's edge

Icon politics.svg
As usual
Country sections
Flag of the United States.svg
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg
Not to be confused with the Technocracy movement.
You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times... and safely home again.
—Gordan Sinclair
The question about progress has become the question whether we can discover any way of submitting to the worldwide paternalism of a technocracy without losing all personal privacy and independence. Is there any possibility of getting the super Welfare State's honey and avoiding the sting?
C.S. Lewis[1]

A technocracy is a form of government in which society is ruled by those with technical knowledge. In a technocracy, leaders are selected based on their technological or scientific knowledge. The scientific method is applied to solve social and political issues within the technocracy, rather than democratically voting on a solution or compromise.[2]


The idea of applying the scientific method to the social order is pretty flawed. Although the scientific method could prove useful at solving some issues, there are other issues that it simply wouldn't solve well.[Examples?] In other words, a system that for developing new knowledge doesn't exactly translate too well into political and social issues.[Why not?] In addition, within the scientific method we must find out if a hypothesis is true via testing. However, to get accurate results, it requires a controlled environment and due to humans being quite unpredictable at times, achieving a controlled environment could be fruitless.[It's hardly been fruitless in psychology, even given the field's imperfections] Another criticism could be that scientists are not inherently fit to be in positions in power. This criticism comes from the belief that most scientists lack the charisma that a leader needs.

Can democracy and a technocracy coexist?[edit]

No, or at least in it's unadulterated form. As mentioned before, people within the scientific field are put into power. They are not elected.

Theoretically, one could require that all persons who sought a certain elected office would have to fulfill certain requirements, such as an accredited PhD in a related field, or similar requirement. If the sample of people in that field was large enough, then democracy could be approximated, though not perfectly achieved. Supporters of technocracy would argue that the (in their view, minor) loss of democracy is worth the (in their view, massive) increase of effective policy.

External links[edit]