If scientists would lead the country, then what would politicians do? Scientists are made to discover new things through research for progress and betterment of humanity, not to lead the country.

Leaders come from paties ,and those will not obey the normal democracy,corruption is one of the most problem in the third world countries .

Dear Tareq Alasadi

In my view the answer is something different. Scientist always deal with problem with some content in it they usually don't like to play a simple game like politics. Politics is a combination of all the emotions and they play with it nicely there are many of these political debates practiced without facts and proof. these kind of debates can easily change according to situations. For example one of the major advantage in science may get political appreciation but they can't even take support to them. And also politics is too dirty means that there are so many culture less fellows make their rules and they say that it for peoples .

Thank you

The answer to your question lies in the following Question :

" would you prefer to swim in muddy, polluted water body when you have near to you a pristine, vast and blue ocean ?", the same comparison applies to career in politics compared to a career in science, respectively.

life in politics can be lucrative, but finite in scope in terms of moral and knowledge uplift , science as we all know is infinite in scope in this regard.

Academician's voice = madman's voice in elections. Crazy more. Choose the like. The result is a degradation of a society that does not understand socio-economic objective truths.

Science is the highest quality of adequate thinking.

Politics - definitive thinking, his childhood.

Religion - the birth of consciousness with intuitive thinking.

Different political parties have different priorities and values and these are subjective things. What is top priority to one person is not top priority to another. Scientists try to deal with things in which there is no ambiguity between right and wrong. Politics and science do not have much in common. One deals with personal values and the other deals with measurable things.

Socio-economic system is one.

Specified factors: COLD, HUNGER, ILLNESS, social and natural resource.

It does not depend on the political thinking of monarchy, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.

Objective: to continuously update or develop social, commodity and monetary resources, improve quality and increase life time.

SCIENCE - proves.

POLICY - gives orders.

RELIGION - offers faith.

Political thinking, like religious, can not count Tavar, people, money. Only scientific thinking can correctly manage socio-economic processes.

Physicists understood the power of a horse 400 years ago.

Economic politicians can not yet understand the work, because they have no scientific (abstract) thinking. Political thinking is substantive. Scientific thinking is abstract, logical, neat. Religious thinking is based on intuitive images.

A previous post said

" Physicists understood the power of a horse 400 years ago. "

In reality, physicists merely gave a name to the power of a horse. Farmers understood that power many centuries earlier. Depending on the definition of "scientific", I would be careful about claiming that only scientific thinking can correctly manage socio-economic processes. I would not assume that economic politicians that have no scientific training are unable to understand their work.

Scientists are following facts ,pollitics seek unscientific routes that high minded peoples not followed

Экономическая, энергетическая и экологическая безопасность стран ЕС на основе передовых энергоинформационных технологий.

Economic, energy and environmental safety of the EU countries on the basis of advanced energy information technologies.

file:///C:/Users/vnkar/Desktop/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%82%D1%8F=%D0%A1%D0%95%D0%A1/%D0%A4%D0%A3%D0%A2%D0%A3%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%9E%D0%93-%D0%97%D0%91%D0%86%D0%A0%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%9A%20%D0%9F%D0%A0%D0%90%D0%A6%D0%AC%202017.pdf

In my opinion:

First of all, the separation between politics and Science is by far not as deep as it might appear on the first sight.

Second, many good politicians hold a a scientific degree, even though they (seemingly) do not exercise in Science any more.

Third, classical Science used to be very deterministic in Nature which did not provide good foundations for the management of something as complex and fuzzy as a human society (old-style scientists would tend to be dictators but their kingdoms would end in failures). This might change in near future since there is a growing awareness of complexity problems in Science.

Fourth, it is hard to imagine a scientist running an election campaign AS A SCIENTIST. Not impossible, but a first good role-defining example is definitely missing. Maybe you should try!

Civilisation. Progress. New dimensions [Electronic resource] : Collection of Materials of the Multidisciplinary Scientific and Practical Conference, Kyiv, June 15th, 2018 / [compiler L. I. Yudina]. – Electronic data (8,5 Mb). − Кyiv : Yudina L. I., 2018. − Access mode : http://futurolog.com.ua/publish/10/Zbirnyk.pdf. − Ua, Eng, Ru. – Title. – ISBN 978-617-7698-00-4 : free.

There is a need for science to be more diverse across ethnic, racial and religious. Science provides the best ideas humans have at their disposal to comprehend what is true about the world. The utility of science has increased with the increse in the size and the extent of the federal government.

Some of the world's top-notch renowned politicians in science — as chemists, researchers and engineers, aerospace are:

Margaret Thatcher, chemist; Jimmy Carter, nuclear engineer; Angela Merkel, quantum chemist; The Pope, chemical technician; Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam, aerospace scientist

Maybe Napoléon Bonaparte said it best.

When he became head of the French government in 1799 (as First Consul, not as Emperor Napoléon Ier of France yet ), Bonaparte hired Pierre-Simon de Laplace, perhaps the most brilliant mathematical physicist of his time, whom he admired greatly as a scientist, to be his Minister or the Interior. One can imagine that Napoléon enlightened idea was close enough to yours.

Anyway, he had to fire him the next month. The official communiqué read :

"A geometrician of the first magnitude, Laplace was not long in showing himself a worse than average administrator. From his first actions in office we recognized our mistake. Laplace did not consider any question from the right angle: he sought subtleties everywhere, had only problematic ideas, and generally carried the spirit of "infinitesimals" into the administration."

Dear Eric ,you mentioned agood point ,as scientists are using theories and good ideology that simple human cannot do ,and pollitics needs trick and experiences that not available with scientists.

If scientists would lead the country, then what would politicians do? Scientists are made to discover new things through research for progress and betterment of humanity, not to lead the country.

Scientific knowledge is not important to lead the country in Politics. We can see most of the honest leaders are failure in the politics but those who makes people ambitious with fake assurance they are success in Politics.

Don't have time during work for mankind...

There are lot of examples when they lead and improve standards in politics... Our beloved Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam extremely successful leader.

When they will lead the country they will be leader, not scientist.

i think leadership needs experience in both science and management let see Mr.kaiss saeed of tunisia now