Instinct. Very good. Like why we and dogs and cats are afraid of heights. But common sense is not something you're born with. It's experience for sure. So what if it's not philosophy? It isn't science.
The premise of the thread is "So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy." Science plays no part in determining anything moral whatsoever. What does e=mc^2 have to do with good or evil / right or wrong? Nothing. It is what it is. With slavery, for example, science told us some people were savages and inferior, less intelligent etc. That's up until the 1930s and even later. Common sense and philosophy told the republicans of the 1850s and 1860s that there was no such inferiority and that slavery was evil. You seem to be saying that science can't deal with vagaries, which is fine. It isn't the answer to everything. It's certainly nothing we should govern by.
who's philosophy? and how would you go about ruling by science? that seems nonsensical. again I don't think it's clear what exactly you are advocating. when you imply that we shouldn't be ruled by science do you mean we shouldn't be ruled by scientists? that would make more sense. it does in a lot of cases if you're working from an already established moral basis, which we generally are (valuation of individual and socially collective happiness and well being, maximal extension of human life). who's us? most people who believed that did so based on expectations stemming from religious philosophy. neither can philosophy in any objective sense. don't know what that means.
About 99 parts philosophy to 1 part science is about right. Governing doesn't require much in the objective sense. It requires common sense or a real strong belief in a philosophy that's been derived from decades or centuries of debate in the realm of thought and ideas.
I don't distinguish between common sense and objectivity. I think any consensus on the validity or value of specific thoughts and ideas is reached through experience, not debate. guess we aren't going to be able to view these things on the same level.
Common sense merely means the ability to react to a situation with a sort of good grace. It's based upon experience, not upon objectivity or scientific method. For example, you know not to jump off the 15 ft. high roof because you once jumped off the 6 ft. high fence and it was scary enough. You don't necessarily know the roof is 15 ft. and the fence 6 ft. since you don't have a tape measure or other objective means of measuring height. Often, common sense involves dealing with situations you have no experience with at all with that same kind of grace. Hell, we elect presidents who have no experience running a nation, and they get by on their ability to make judgments from their common sense and experiences. The debate on this site has historically been religion vs. science. There is an alternative to both, and that is philosophy. I'm not at all calling for anything religious to be involved. I don't consider Robert Nozick or John Rawls or even the village idiot Paul Krugman to be religious or scientists, but I do find them to be influential of thought when it comes to governing.
grace? you're describing using science-like reasoning - making predictions based on past experience, if not strictly the scientific method (which as it relates to your OP is an irrelevant distinction). this is true even for the situations a president would have no experience with, because you're describing the application of different types of experience to those situations. common sense is the use of basic knowledge gained through experience. essentially this IS science. it has nothing to do with philosophy, unless you want to refer to science as "a" type of philosophy, which is cool. yes, and they tend to piss half the country off when they make judgments based on personal philosophy without scientific justification.
Science isn't personal experience. I think you may be on the silly side of things with that claim. Science has to be repeatable by scientists everywhere. No two people share the same experiences.
your example of roof jumping is science-like reasoning, not philosophy. common sense is science-like reasoning, not philosophy.
I think there may be people out there who can make the 15 ft. jump. It's subjective, not objective. And still there's the sticky point about observations being repeatable everywhere in the universe.
there is an objective probability of injury for a particular individual at a particular height (along with other factors). the only subjectivity comes from (intentionally) leaving the particulars vague. in any case the example has no relation to your OP, since governing affects the populous, not just those who govern. it's odd but by attempting to downplay the role of science in government it seems like you are on the borderline of advocating totalitarianism in this thread, which I know is the polar opposite of your views.
My fingernail grew a fraction of a millimeter while I enter this post. Therefore, it's science? Wow.., I advocate a separation of govt. from all but a few things. Church, science, and education are the obvious places to start.
A government needs to build a bridge. Philosophy, faith or science, which one is the best tool to use in building the right type, right strength, right length, right height, right width, right price, right duration for this bridge?
if you insist on creating a dichotomy between philosophy and science, measuring or noticing the growth of your fingernail is obviously science. yeah I know you do, but you're talking about something different than your OP here - government agendas shouldn't influence the direction of scientific research etc.
