> So to follow your argument, being a lawyer does not make one "law".
...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? Of course being a lawyer doesn't make you "the law".
> Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws?
Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. It's important; it's relevant; it contributes to society in a positive and melioristic way.
No, it's not. I'm just poking fun at the parent post, specifically the "practicing science does not make you science" line. It just sounded like some bizarre variation of "you are (or not) what you eat" to me.
> Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science.
I agree with this. Unfortunately, all too often people making laws about science know nothing about it, and end up setting discovery back. Ideally there would be someone in government whose critical thinking could balance out all the rhetoric. I'm not saying all lawyers should be replaced with scientists.
> Do you actually know what Godwin's Law states?
I have not yet been banned from Wikipedia. Re-read the comment I am replying to. He is arguing against putting scientists in government because the Nazis had scientists. It was a good trolling attempt though - look at us two go on about it :)
...is this supposed to be a point of some kind? Of course being a lawyer doesn't make you "the law".
> Shouldn't people other than lawyers have input on laws?
Why? People should be familiar with law for the same reason people should be familiar with science. It's important; it's relevant; it contributes to society in a positive and melioristic way.
> Also: Godwin's law.
Do you actually know what Godwin's Law states?