Political Science

The interplay between politics and science has been a cornerstone of the United States. Enlightenment figures like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Rittenhouse, and Rush used scientific knowledge to shape the American government. The rise of atomic power reinvigorated this vision, highlighting the importance of scientists who also tried, and failed to highlight the importance of transparency in technical matters, nuclear agreements, and disarmament for ensuring security. This situation posed an apparent dilemma: should we foster mutual understanding through openness or resort to secrecy and coercion?

The struggle between transparency and secrecy is far from new. Political leaders, lured by the allure of power, have often chosen the path of secrecy, justifying the creation of a staggering 35,000 nuclear weapons as a display of might because it feels good, ignoring both the financial burden and ethical implications. This quest for power has often eclipsed the more sustainable, albeit less thrilling, route of at least trying to build cooperation and trust.

In theory, it's the public's role to hold politicians accountable. That is the purpose of a democratic representative government. Still, the complexities of daily life—making a living, raising families, and personal interests—often divert our attention, making it easier for politicians to operate without sufficient oversight, even if they told us what was really going on.

Another fundamental problem preventing our contributions is the repetitive nature of our discussions. Each time an issue arises, we find ourselves rehashing the same arguments as if they've never been debated before. The problems of time-based debates can not be overstated. If we have time-based debates, everyone who contributes must be in the same room at the same time if they want to contribute. However, if we organize pro/con sub-arguments, people can submit reasons to agree and disagree whenever. This lack of progress is exacerbated by politicians who present one-sided narratives, keeping us, the people responsible for holding them accountable, in the dark or unable to assimilate and weigh all the relevant information.

So, what path do our politicians and military leaders choose in this environment of public distraction, lack of transparency, and convoluted issues? Regrettably, they often lean towards secrecy and the illusion of control rather than embracing reason and collaboration.

We need our governments and political parties to publish the data accepted and rejected and algorithms used to make decisions in a clear and accessible way so that the public can understand how they work and identify any potential biases. Just as students are expected to "show their math," the public deserves this level of transparency from those in power. The focus should not solely be on the decisions made but also on the quantitative methods used to arrive at those decisions. The time for relying on one-sided propaganda is over; we must establish platforms enabling better, more rational, evidence-based decision-making. These platforms would present each policy's potential pros, cons, costs, and benefits and invite public input on the likelihood of specific outcomes.

Although this may seem overwhelming initially, a well-organized system can make it manageable. We can streamline the decision-making process by grouping similar arguments to eliminate redundancy and carefully evaluating them based on their logical coherence, factual accuracy, verification level, relevance, significance, and potential impact. Arguments must be organized into pro/con lists and ranked based on their scores, accompanied by transparent assessments. This approach emphasizes reason and openness, creating a society where decisions are based on open feedback that produces quantitative, objective reasoning rather than secrecy, coercion, or force.

Secrecy in democratic societies undermines the collective wisdom of the public, leading to decisions made in isolation that are prone to groupthink and confirmation bias. It also fuels conspiracy theories and erodes mutual trust, increasing the likelihood of misunderstandings and miscalculations with other nations. An open online platform for cost-benefit analysis and automated conflict resolution would enable us to clearly articulate our interests and objectives, reducing the risk of dangerous misinterpretations by other countries.

Secrecy also compromises the quality of decision-making within the government. When a small group makes decisions without public scrutiny or input from a broader range of experts, the outcomes are often less reliable. While it's true that not every citizen can grasp all the complexities involved, that's not the point. The math of openness operates on the principle that in a country of 300 million people, individuals can correct flawed assumptions if given the opportunity. By transparently organizing government insights on pros and cons and ranking public comments based on their quality, we can tap into this collective intelligence to make better decisions.