Social Progress
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <5/28>

      It is often lamented that we have made great scientific progress but we have not made similar progress in social issues. A typical lament would be we have put a man on the moon but we have not solved hunger. Perhaps there is a difference in the approach.
      At one time science was no more than scattered elements that we can say today were the predecessors of modern science but at the time people would have been hard pressed to put them together. Alchemy makes a moderately good example. Alchemists started off developing the philosophical premises and then attempting to make them work.
      There was a problem with their approach. If the test failed is was the fault of the items used and not of the philosophy. That lead to doing the same thing again with more pure or more aged or whatever the philosophy required.
      When the theory failed they did not blame the theory. They blamed the failure on the implementation.
      When chemistry replaced alchemy it reversed the process. If the results are not as desired then the theory is discarded. It was not the development of the experimental method but rather giving the results of the experiment dominance over the theory.
      As a result we finally developed theories that worked and they do work very well. The fact you are reading this rather than listening to me say it in the town square is evidence enough. (And that makes some people curse progress but that is beside the point.)
      When it comes to social issues we do no such thing. Drugs are the classic examples of a failed system. This country has decided certain drugs should not be used. In order to deter their use this country has repeatedly increased the penalties for dealing in and using those drugs.
      The theory is that increasing the penalty will deter the use. However each time we play alchemist and test this idea by increasing the penalties the use of drugs increases. How do we explain this?
      That is where the alchemists are back in force. The theory MUST work therefore the explanation for the failure must lie elsewhere. For drugs it is usually, if we had done nothing drugs would have increased faster or poverty has increased or moral breakdown of society. No political party has a lock on explaining the failure of a theory when they agree upon a theory.
      Of course the alchemist's approach is not limited to drugs. It runs from welfare to disarmament. It is the application of theory despite the results of experience. When the theory produces contrary results then the proposed solution is to redouble the application of the theory.
      Increasing the punishment for drugs was an obvious example. We tried it with the Great Society with its programs to end poverty. Poverty increases so the response is to create more programs for the poor. Poverty increases again and even more programs are created. It is impossible for the alchemists to question the theory.
      So the first thing we must do is absolutely determine our laws and our programs based upon measurable results from those laws and not upon what we imagine the laws are supposed to accomplish. If X does not cause Y it is foolish to do 2X when the only reasonable expectation is that will will get and even greater failure. If you are trying to start a car by pumping the gas and the result is a flooded carburetor would you pump it twice as much to make it start?
      And if you would not do that would you support increasing the penalties for drug usage when the results have been increased drug usage? Would you increase the spending to reduce poverty when the last time you did that it increased poverty? If eye of newt and hair of dog does not change lead to gold would you use two eyes of newt next time?
      All three examples are the same. Certainly we do not know all the variables in the human equation. Neither did the first chemists when they discarded newts' eyes. They did, however, learn what worked.
      One success lead to another and another until there was an understanding of all of the variables. The alchemist of today plead to those unknown variables in order to save the theory rather than doing anything to learn what those variables are and what controls them.
      If it is not of interest to the social alchemists to find out just how and why things work in society that is fine with me. I point out that progress in science started when theory was abandoned in favor of results. If there is no interest in the same method then it is foolish to expect the same results.