A Seed editorial this week, which is incidentally an endorsement of Barack Obama, offers a dubious idea about the relation between science and politics.

Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method. Science is a lens through which we can and should visualize and solve complex problems, organize government and multilateral bodies, establish international alliances, inspire national pride, restore positive feelings about America around the globe, embolden democracy, and ultimately, lead the world. More than anything, what this lens offers the next administration is a limitless capacity to handle all that comes its way, no matter how complex or unanticipated.

Letting this paragraph slide without criticizing it would be easier if it celebrated something more vague, like the Enlightenment. But the Seed editors leave little doubt here: They see the scientific method as a way of organizing human communities. Part of their purpose is ostensibly to discourage abuses of science. But stretching science into epistemic territory where it doesn’t belong does little to help the situation.

The paragraph sounds great, but it really doesn’t make much sense.

Let’s say your problem is to reorganize the United Nations Security Council. What do you do? Do you get the five permanent member states to volunteer their best scientists to jointly develop a solution? You probably could do that, but even then, the result would be a political process, not a scientific one. One can imagine how a power-grab by one of the member states could be justified on the grounds of “scientific research”.

The distribution of power is a political problem, not a scientific one. Policymaking requires political feelings, thoughts, and acts more than it requires scientific research results, though science can certainly help. Political disputes most often have nothing to do with scientific disputes. Ultimately, the criteria of scientific belief are different from those of political belief. This is a crucial distinction to remember as we go about the important work of re-imagining how science can help us to govern ourselves. It begins by making sure that everyone can influence the public decisions that affect them. Start with civic engagement, and let science follow.

(Hat tip to 3quarksdaily.)