Sounds reasonable, no?

Who could argue with a "Science and Reason Party"?

Well, me, the person who invented this blog almost 13 years ago and hasn't written here since 2006, might.

Look at the number of people practicing "scientism" and trying to apply science to philosophical or aesthetics issues. And, those philosophical issues are ones that often affect government, political philosophy (and political science).

And, even if people can't be fully charged with "scientism," it's still easy to bend science in particular political directions. Look at Steven Pinker. Ph.D. in psych from Harvard, but I certainly wouldn't agree with a fair chunk of his politics, nor do I agree at all with many of his ev psycher ideas that sometimes influence his political stances. Jordan Peterson? Ph.D. in psych at McGill, arguably Canada's premier university. Ditto on my general take on him.

But, per Tevye, it IS reasonable if one remembers the "and reason."

Now, a claim that we're highly rational critters, as a species, might be called "philosophism." Per David Hume, the reason need always follow the passions. But, Hume adds that it does "Need" to ... as in passions, as our drives and motivators, must be subject to the slow thinking of reason as much as we can.

The combination is why I grow uncomfortable with the Green Party after long-ago abandoning Democrats for presidential choices and other places where a more left third-party option was offered.

Unofficially on vaccines, and officially on GMOs, the Socialist Party USA has a more science-grounded stance. That's examining passions in the light of reason. The SPUSA isn't perfect on some other issues. But, true reason allows that, even with filtering of passions, they never go away.

After all, the only good Buddhist is a dead Buddhist.