Those who have contributed to the thread have shown me there isn't much general awareness of the 'technology'. There are already intelligent systems like Watson (IBM) doing a fair job on embodied expert knowledge (medical in this case). The general idea is in this from New Scientist:
In your wildest dreams, could you imagine a government that builds its policies on carefully gathered scientific evidence? One that publishes the rationale behind its decisions, complete with data, analysis and supporting arguments? Well, dream no longer: that's where the UK is heading. It has been a long time coming, according to Chris Wormald, permanent secretary at the Department for Education. The civil service is not short of clever people, he points out, and there is no lack of desire to use evidence properly. More than 20 years as a serving politician has convinced him that they are as keen as anyone to create effective policies. "I've never met a minister who didn't want to know what worked," he says. What has changed now is that informed policy-making is at last becoming a practical possibility. That is largely thanks to the abundance of accessible data and the ease with which new, relevant data can be created. This has supported a desire to move away from hunch-based politics. Last week, for instance, Rebecca Endean, chief scientific advisor and director of analytical services at the Ministry of Justice, announced that the UK government is planning to open up its data for analysis by academics, accelerating the potential for use in policy planning. At the same meeting, hosted by innovation-promoting charity NESTA, Wormald announced a plan to create teaching schools based on the model of teaching hospitals. In education, he said, the biggest single problem is a culture that often relies on anecdotal experience rather than systematically reported data from practitioners, as happens in medicine. "We want to move teacher training and research and practice much more onto the health model," Wormald said. Test, learn, adapt In June last year the Cabinet Office published a paper called "Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled trials". One of its authors, the doctor and campaigning health journalist Ben Goldacre, has also been working with the Department of Education to compile a comparison of education and health research practices, to be published in the BMJ. In education, the evidence-based revolution has already begun. A charity called the Education Endowment Foundation is spending £1.4 million on a randomised controlled trial of reading programmes in 50 British schools. There are reservations though. The Ministry of Justice is more circumspect about the role of such trials. Where it has carried out randomised controlled trials, they often failed to change policy, or even irked politicians with conclusions that were obvious. "It is not a panacea," Endean says. Power of prediction The biggest need is perhaps foresight. Ministers often need instant answers, and sometimes the data are simply not available. Bang goes any hope of evidence-based policy. "The timescales of policy-making and evidence-gathering don't match," says Paul Wiles, a criminologist at the University of Oxford and a former chief scientific adviser to the Home Office. Wiles believes that to get round this we need to predict the issues that the government is likely to face over the next decade. "We can probably come up with 90 per cent of them now," he says. Crucial to the process will be convincing the public about the value and use of data, so that everyone is on-board. This is not going to be easy. When the government launched its Administrative Data Taskforce, which set out to look at data in all departments and opening it up so that it could be used for evidence-based policy, it attracted minimal media interest. The taskforce's remit includes finding ways to increase trust in data security. Then there is the problem of whether different departments are legally allowed to exchange data. There are other practical issues: many departments format data in incompatible ways. "At the moment it's incredibly difficult," says Jonathan Breckon, manager of the Alliance for Useful Evidence, a collaboration between NESTA and the Economic and Social Research Council. Hearts, minds and funding There are economic issues. Most of the predictable areas where data and evidence would be useful span different departments, and funding for research that involves multiple government departments is near- impossible to come by at the moment. "Only counter-terrorism gets cross-departmental funding," Wiles says. And those at the frontline of all this may also need convincing. Some teachers have already expressed reservations. There may be problems with parents not wanting their children to take part in education trials. For instance, in a control group they will feel left out of innovation; in the experimental arm they will worry that the old ways were better. What's more, teachers may be tempted to halt a trial early if they feel it is not helping students. Nevertheless, the government is working with NESTA and a range of backers to create a set of institutions dedicated to gathering evidence that will impact on public policy. One example is the Early Intervention Foundation, which helps local government evaluate schemes that help preschool learning amongst children who would otherwise enter standard education at a disadvantage. There will be announcements of more initiatives in the next few weeks, says Geoff Mulgan, NESTA's chief executive . "We're hoping this year the UK will jump a step ahead of every other country in the world in having a set of institutions dedicated to generating evidence and helping it to be used in day-to-day decisions." My own view is that intelligent systems could affect politics and our attitudes towards work and wealth distribution. It could even be the machines will give us rationality we are incapable of. On 21 Jan, 08:59, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't agree with that now Don - though I once did. 'Grand > democratic socialism' never appealed much to me and in reality the > nearest to examples we have of it are in the West anyway. What I've > lost is any faith in the financial system and the politics of the > vote. I was in Bucharest in the late 80's with a Saul Bellow book > describing an academic finding the same corruption there as in his > home Chicago. Never liked Bellow much - but thought his description > of people who had read the great literature wandering around in the > freezing moral climate of the Soviet Block rang true for me - and what > bothers me is I feel the same in our system. I've eaten well on the > academic drivel Don and once believed it had some point beyond feeding > those who utter it - move from science to economics and business (even > from cop) has led me to disillusion with 'theorists'. Most of it is > palpable drivel. I will probably shuffle off a dog-walking hermit. > > Sorry to hear of the episode Allan - hope you recover as quickly as > usual. Science is plodding along telling a different tale of what it > is to be human. I take some solace in that and perhaps the ludicrous > state in which RT (Russia Today) and Al Jazeera offer more accurate > news than the BBC (though one detects propaganda as surely as > listening to Radio Moscow in the 60's). The madness is we have no > need to organise as we do. I doubt this will change. > > On Jan 21, 3:46 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Interesting thread. I agree with Rigs, as usual. I have no problem > > with democracy as long as the voters are sane and reasonably > > intelligent and self-reliant. Therefore I disagree with democracy. > > Long live the Republic! But seriously, if we had a global democracy > > all us advanced nations would suffer without a corresponding lift in > > poorer cultures advancement. People will vote themselves > > money/benefits/stuff now at the expense of future consequences. Kick > > that can. Observe last USA presidential election. > > > 'Nuff said. > > > dj > > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:38 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Coffee stains are the new physics -http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/7 > > > > Allan's opinion is similar to my own - but there's a big 'but' - and > > > this concerns how we could get something radically different to work. > > > The usual dismissal of what many of us agree on in terms of fairness > > > and decency is 'this is a dirty old world and we need to play by the > > > rules of the bad guys or be swamped by them - our bad guys can't be > > > hampered by rules their competitors don't face and so on'. On top of > > > this the whole history of modern imperialism is written in legend. > > > Unions become not defenders of worker conditions and pay but enemies > > > etc. > > > > On Jan 20, 3:57 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> The function of mayonnaise is to teach us about negative vacuum energy > > >> Gabby! What the banksters are doing is controlling a global wage/food/ > > >> energy arbitrage that should be in local hands (ours). The Pirates > > >> had/have something going - but even 'socialist' France has boots on > > >> the ground - even if we had political revolution how would we deal > > >> with the inevitable foreign policy junk when whoever represents us has > > >> the military and secret services in their ears suggesting the policies > > >> we want will lead to Islamic-Chinese empires that will come looking > > >> for us? > > > >> On 20 Jan, 03:30, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > If I say something like 'you have never heard a true word about > > >> > management development' I broadly know what I mean. Some ass might > > >> > point out this is an example of the liar's paradox (presumably if you > > >> > have never heard a true word on the subject that includes mine) - but > > >> > I could explain my shorthand. We might walk into the scrotty pub I > > >> > occasionally frequent and order 'vodka martinis, shaken not stirred' - > > >> > clearly a comment on the pub not an order. Stuff like this makes > > >> > programming machines difficult - though machines are getting smarter > > >> > these days. > > > >> > If we wanted to argue Allan's case we could find a lot of academic > > >> > support (Bill Black is the most accessible) - from biology, > > >> > anthropology, economics, history and social theory. The 'voter > > >> > machine' is not programmed with this material - I struggle to think of > > >> > much film, television or literature based in the science I know and > > >> > our kids get to university full of myths (Crusader in the west, Jihad > > >> > in the middle east - etc.). The business books I'm supposed to teach > > >> > from all treat capital as neutral and demand to teach corporate fraud > > >> > is very limited - some students see it as a how to module. There are > > >> > questions abut how to get the voting machine to process the argument > > >> > and even make the argument available. > > > >> > On Jan 19, 10:45 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > The only way I see an honest government is strictly control in > > >> > > influence of corporations and spin doctors with all of their dealings > > >> > > involving government being recorded both video and audio with these > > >> > > being open to public scrutiny,, not just special commissions,, Also > > >> > > corporation presidents with the board of directors need to serve > > >> > > prison sentences when their companies break the law,, once convicted > > >> > > no longer be able to act as advisers or hold the offices of > > >> > > corporations.. ending all corporations for lawyers so the can no > > >> > > longer hide.. > > >> > > the enforcement of corporate need to be brought into effect instead > > >> > > of > > >> > > letting them slide. > > >> > > nasty huh... > > >> > > Allan > > > >> > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > We call ourselves democracies - the classic was perhaps the DDR > > >> > > > (East > > >> > > > Germany), famous for strange athletes, Stasi and the Trabant. But > > >> > > > shouldn't we expect the Doublespeak Allan? Most of us don't really > > >> > > > want to be involved in politics - it's a bit like running the > > >> > > > coffee > > >> > > > fund in a school common room. Like Gabby I tend to vote Green - > > >> > > > but > > >> > > > this is really about registering my protest that the main parties > > >> > > > are > > >> > > > now scum. We could, as Andrew suggested, have a much less > > >> > > > representative politics and make more decisions ourselves. In the > > >> > > > UK > > >> > > > we should already have decentralised from London and become much > > >> > > > more > > >> > > > electronic in base. It must be very easy for 'foreign powers' to > > >> > > > infiltrate our main political parties and they are all stacked out > > >> > > > with highly suspicious suit horses. There has long been no one > > >> > > > for me > > >> > > > to vote for. We need revolutionary ideas about the system and I > > >> > > > don't > > >> > > > mean bombs, capes, dubious mustaches and a "temporary" > > >> > > > dictatorship of > > >> > > > the proles. This is why I think radical change in our > > >> > > > understanding > > >> > > > and then technology of argument might help. You astutely note we > > >> > > > don't have any real democracies - but were earlier clinging to the > > >> > > > notion of voting involving argument - I'm saying that ain't 'real' > > >> > > > either. > > > >> > > > On 19 Jan, 07:52, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't see how you can call any government a democracy .. the > > >> > > >> USA is > > >> > > >> a republic and I do not see how you can call any government when > > >> > > >> leadership keep palling around with the wealth chasing the golden > > >> > > >> calf. > > >> > > >> Allan > > > >> > > >> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 1:21 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Computing has brought about changes in maths on grounds of > > >> > > >> > speed in > > >> > > >> > calculation that humans can't achieve in lifetimes - patterns > > >> > > >> > appear > > >> > > >> > in massive iterations we simply don't have time to do. I don't > > >> > > >> > have > > >> > > >> > much problem with this if, say, it lets us devise flight plans > > >> > > >> > to > > >> > > >> > Mars. They are increasingly used to have information first, > > >> > > >> > perhaps > > >> > > >> > like someone using a telescope to spot which ship is coming > > >> > > >> > home in > > >> > > >> > order to unload what stock of goods one has while prices are > > >> > > >> > still > > >> > > >> > high before its goods are docked. I doubt the entire use of the > > >> > > >> > technology in economics. In some areas of science we are not > > >> > > >> > sure > > >> > > >> > what the computers are telling us and they appear to be > > >> > > >> > "thinking".I > > >> > > >> > have taught many people to drive spreadsheets and databases - > > >> > > >> > though > > >> > > >> > few really learn to manipulate new questions into them or design > > >> > > >> > useful reporting from them. > > >> > > >> > Rigs hits one of the nails of democracy on the head and Andrew > > >> > > >> > drives > > >> > > >> > in another. Unlike Gabby I tend to view faith as a weakness. > > >> > > >> > The > > >> > > >> > vinegar and oil approach is probably cast as incommensurability > > >> > > >> > in > > >> > > >> > philosophy - though combined as salad dressing Andrew's meat is > > >> > > >> > my > > >> > > >> > poison. I suspect much allegedly incommensurate is merely > > >> > > >> > incompatible due to definition. Chemists could no doubt > > >> > > >> > produce a > > >> > > >> > solution with both oil and vinegar in it. Wiles' solution to > > >> > > >> > Fermat's > > >> > > >> > last theorem bridges modular and elliptic equations and Sneed > > >> > > >> > and > > >> > > >> > Ludwig have used set theory to show compatibility between older > > >> > > >> > and > > >> > > >> > modern physics (scientists mostly believed this anyway). > > > >> > > >> > The question is whether there is something we can apply to the > > >> > > >> > sad > > >> > > >> > state of democracy that keeps the egalitarianism better than > > >> > > >> > our very > > >> > > >> > peculiar voting systems. If we had an "argument machine" we > > >> > > >> > might be > > ... > > read more » --
