Comments on: The US Senate: All Lawyers and Businessmen, Not One Scientist http://factonista.org/2008/08/29/the-us-senate-all-lawyers-and-businessmen-not-one-scientist/ Science. Humanism. Atheism. Politics. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:46:32 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Chedstone http://factonista.org/2008/08/29/the-us-senate-all-lawyers-and-businessmen-not-one-scientist/comment-page-1/#comment-507 Chedstone Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:06:58 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=869#comment-507 unortunately, it might be too much to ask. i agree with you 100% though. It's nice to bring in experts in the field you are discussing policy about. I'm sure it's easy for people to try and put a business spin on the policy too if that's all they know. let's have some independent, knowledgeable inquiry! unortunately, it might be too much to ask. i agree with you 100% though. It’s nice to bring in experts in the field you are discussing policy about. I’m sure it’s easy for people to try and put a business spin on the policy too if that’s all they know. let’s have some independent, knowledgeable inquiry!

]]> By: Rodrigo Neely http://factonista.org/2008/08/29/the-us-senate-all-lawyers-and-businessmen-not-one-scientist/comment-page-1/#comment-491 Rodrigo Neely Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:03:01 +0000 http://theedger.org/?p=869#comment-491 The only thing I disagree with in your article is the negative use of "technocracy" since I have named a campaign to promote more science consultation "neo-technocracy." From what i can tell, self-identified technocrats just wanted science to play a bigger political role. Which it seems, so do you. The term "technocrat" seems to have spent the last 50 years as a replacement term for "robber-baron." Political scientists have carelessly embraced this term as a word to categorize wealthy industrialists who play major influential roles in politics. When the original technocrats, the ones who actually self-identified as technocrats, where a lot more like todays "futurists." I really liked your article, its just giving technocracy a good name is my schtick. It is my schtick precisely because of all the arguments you have made. The only thing I disagree with in your article is the negative use of “technocracy” since I have named a campaign to promote more science consultation “neo-technocracy.” From what i can tell, self-identified technocrats just wanted science to play a bigger political role. Which it seems, so do you.

The term “technocrat” seems to have spent the last 50 years as a replacement term for “robber-baron.”

Political scientists have carelessly embraced this term as a word to categorize wealthy industrialists who play major influential roles in politics. When the original technocrats, the ones who actually self-identified as technocrats, where a lot more like todays “futurists.”

I really liked your article, its just giving technocracy a good name is my schtick.

It is my schtick precisely because of all the arguments you have made.

]]>