From fake- Democracy to true democracy (Part 2): The scientific method is actually especially well-suited for impossibly complex, inscrutable questions such as the origin of Civilization, the State, power, love, intelligence, consciousness or human nature.

The following is part of Chapter IV of the first comprehensive scientific model of the mind (look for the "Scientific Brain Model" tab at the top of the home page)..

There is the general misconception, according to which the scientific method's application domain is limited to the natural sciences and it cannot be employed for the investigation of complex abstract concepts such as civilization, state, power, love, intelligence, consciousness or human nature.

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth, since the scientific method is nothing but a general, all-purpose recipe for learning the causes and reasons of stuff. Absolutely, so long we seek to understand what are the causes and reasons for certain stuff - that is, how a given thing works or how certain stuff comes about -, the scientific method can be applied to the investigation of any recognizable thing. As discussed in previous sections, the scientific method proceeds in repeated cycles, in each of which we put through the test a set of reasons (data-generating model) we are at that time hypothesizing to cause the stuff we observe. So long we can go on repeating for as long as necessary trying out all sorts of plausible reasons, - for only the exhaustive exploration of all possible combinations - it only makes sense we will eventually get really close to the true causes for the data. However, we need to be able to perceive some sort of output, so that we can assess wether the model's hypotheses pass the test or not. Now, the requirement of some sort of perceivable output does not imply the scientific method is restricted to tangible things; but we can likewise apply it to abstract concepts. So long the concept's definition is precise enough to specify what sort of perceivable output the thing in question should generate in any given situation, we will be able to test whether the hypothesized data-generating model produces such same output. In other words, so long we are able to test if the thing behaves as the model predicts, it is possible to apply the scientific method.

An obvious example of this is the weather. Clearly, the weather is not a tangible thing, but we are still able to recognize whether it is raining, what is the air pressure, what is the wind speed and direction, what is the atmospheric temperature, etc. Thus, we can begin hypothesizing how all these variables relate one to another, run the model and test whether the model's predictions coincide with the actual weather output. or not. The key element of the scientific method is therefore the model: namely, since we have a model of the investigated thing, we can play with it as much as necessary, trying all possible ways in which the model's variables may relate one to another, until we find the one that yields accurate predictions.   

Now, the weather does have a physical expression in real life; but it is much less intuitive to see how it may be possible to investigate an abstract concept such as 'democracy', which not only does not have a physical expression, but does not even exist in reality, since it is only an ideal. Definitely, a clique of powerful individuals at the top of the society only came up with the term 'democracy', as a form of ideal world, in order to lure and spellbind the rest of the people into a specific political movement, and keep them most absolutely enchanted holding the short end of the stick forever after. However, not only does the concept of democracy only exist in our minds, but - as it is defined - does not have a feasible manifestation in the real world. Indeed, the strict definition of 'democracy' is: "the government by the people"; however, it is rather obvious that the sheer expression is in itself quite a bit of an oxymoron, since the term 'government' already implies there is a subgroup of individuals, who exert authority over the rest of the population. Moreover, it is equally obvious that it is not very wise nor judicious to engage and burden the entire population in the specific and specialized function of government. Yet, if we can all make sense of the concept of democracy, it is because - theoretical debates aside - it is not at all involved to visualize how such an ideal political system should feel like. Yes, to the extent that the term 'democracy' was coined to ignite the people's wildest dreams, we should not get entangled in the strict definition. Rather, it is for everybody easy to understand, that the whole idea behind the concept of 'democracy' is not that the government is run by the people, but that the government looks after the interests of the entire population, in that everybody enjoys a similar, fair and balanced opportunity to succeed. Crucially, this picture of the ideal political system is the concept's "perceivable output" we can use as target as we follow the scientific method to explore our way into the ideal world of democracy.

the whole catch of the Democracy hoax is that the most enlighten in the society, those that from then on out will forever hold the good end of the stick, wired up in our brains the revealed truth of what constitutes the magical formula, which - without a doubt - should bring about the Garden of Eden of democracy: Of course!, if we hold presidential and legislative elections every few years, observe separation of powers and allow total freedom to media outlets' magnates to establish public opinion; we can be certain that the government will look after the interests of the entire population, in that everybody will enjoy a similar, fair and balanced opportunity to succeed. There is no way around it, if that is the revealed truth and sentence of the most enlighten minds in the society, who are you, little worm on Earth, to maintain any doubt about it? As they so very much like to say: "Our so-called Democracy is not perfect, but it is better than nothing". Yet, for only the courts' systematic bias in favor of those privileged litigants wealthy enough to afford hiring a private attorney, no self-reasoning mind could reasonably conclude everybody receives the same treatment. In fact, the unbalance of opportunities is wired up in the System, the moment the very Constitution acknowledges the supreme importance of the right to legal counsel. If we then consider further that those born to wealthy families enjoy far better opportunities, not just in the crooks system, but also in education, health or basically any other aspect of life, there is simply no way that, any self-reasoning mind could reasonably agree that, by any stretch of the imagination we are anywhere close to the Promised Land of democracy. Yet, God forbid, nothing precludes us from trying other formulas to achieve something resembling similar, fair and balanced opportunities: Perhaps the fox is guarding the henhouse, when journalists are in the payroll of big magnates?; perhaps, in the same way that the people elect their political leaders, they should likewise elect their public opinion leaders?; perhaps separation of powers does not work wonders?; perhaps some mechanism must be put in place to prevent the crooks from using their discretion to systematically fake having been fooled by the private attorney, and instead point out that whatever loophole the private attorney has come up with still contravenes the spirit of the Law?...

After all, ours is only the latest - yet, probably the mostt dishonest - of several other takes on the idea of democracy. The first documented attempt - probably the most honest and best of all - was Ancient Athens' Direct Democracy; but it was declared defunct and forever abandoned, after Athens' ultimate defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Another very-well known example is the Roman Republic's Representative Democracy, which yielded spectacular results during its initial pre-imperial era - while inequality stayed within reasonable levels -; but gradually went out of order, as Rome became the master of the Mediterranean, until it reached its horrific apocalipsis after a gory century of constant civil wars and bloodbaths. It then speaks to the founding fathers' dishonesty, when they could not think of anything better than to put as through a new run of the grisly nightmare, by designing our Representative Democracy to the image of the failed Roman Republic's. To make a long story short, given the precedents and the current state of affairs, there is no reasonable reason why we could not apply the scientific method to start raising hypotheses on what factors and ingredients would yield a more satisfying output.

After all, if the scientific method is little more than a formal specification of the good, old trial-and-error investigation scheme, we should be able to employ it to explore just about anything. We should not allow ourselves to be impressed by the pesimism of those who hold the good end of the stick; it certainly is of no surprise that they insist the scientific method has no good application in the social sciences. Evidently, it is only foolish to expect the witch will ever want to advise the frog on how the spell can be broken. After all, the spell may not be perfect; but it is better than nothing, isn't it?

   

Highly recommended is all three parts of Chapter IV of "A Scientific Model Of The Brain: From Instinct to Reason, How Does The Mind Work".