Show paragraph

"Applying "science" to social problems has brought huge dividends in the past." is an apparently true statement, but the keyword is "science" with an implication of being real science. The disasters mentioned in the attempts to justify political control over big tech were not science unless you consider "political science and humanities" science.



The non-science areas (like political science) only claim to be scientific (image management), but they are neither falsifiable nor data-driven areas of knowledge. It was a pure political opinion that created disasters like collectivization of agriculture in Russia and China while destroying all the local detailed agricultural knowledge. No matter how many failures have occurred, Marxism and Socialism are still taught and believed to be true in the "social sciences" in Universities. These same universities will not claim astrology is a scientific understanding of the universe but just an example of bad ideas created by the human brain trying to "connect the dots" where there are no connections.



You are right about markets being protection, but your apparent desire to democratically control markets should include the long history of any regulations being utilized and captured by existing self-interested political powers and interest. We see this today as the old car companies, government/legal groups and insurance companies ban together to slow the evolution of self-driving cars. Imagine what a 50% reduction in auto accidents will do to insurance rates over time. All this isn't science, but making a car drive itself is.