The scientific method is a way of testing how well certain hypotheses explain what happens in reality. Its primary test of validity of concepts is, Does this concept/theory produce valid predictions? (Does it do so consistently, when tested by multiple different testers? One-offs don't count as "valid".) Science is good at finding ways to describe what is going on.
The scientific method, however, is completely useless in the realm of value judgments. The classic way of expressing this is, "An 'is' does not imply an 'ought'." Scientific testing can determine which chemotherapy drugs are most effective in slowing the advancement of pancreatic cancer; but it is useless in deciding when a patient who is terminal should move from aggressive to palliative care. Even if you put scientific-sounding phrases like, "unbiased and more accurate" on the decision, it's still a value judgment.
Some people don't want to survive in a hospital bed, so doped up they can't tell day from night half the time, without the ability to walk, talk with their friends and family, play with their dog, or pursue their chosen profession. Others will fight for every single day, treasuring each moment they can think and experience Life--even if that life is edged with pain. Some will set a certain milepost they wish to achieve, like seeing a loved one graduate or get married, and then want to move on. Some will want to trade off between amount of discomfort and length of life. And so on.
Science does not, and cannot, say which of these positions is right. All values are defined within a context of, "To whom? At what cost? Under what conditions?" (And, whether that cost is measured in dollars or man-hours or the opportunity cost of what else could have been done with the resources involved, there is always a cost.) Patients who value their quality of life over their length of life are entitled to feel that way; but the patient who wants to live to see their child graduate is equally entitled to their perspective. There is no way of 'scientifically' differentiating between the two. It's a matter of their respective values.
No matter what the computer's program does to make decisions, there will still be value standards present, at least implicitly, in its criteria. If the standard of the Medical Resource Allocation program is, "Maximize lifespan until age 70" but also, "Do not use hospital resources for a shorter-projected lifespan patient if a longer-span patient needs them," then the arrival of a traffic-collision or appendicitis case in an otherwise-healthy 24-year-old will bump the cancer patient out. Since resources on the planet are finite, there will always be scarcity of some kind. Scarcity in fields where a great deal of knowledge is one of the resources is even more common. (That's why doctors and virtuoso violinists are highly-rewarded: There is more demand for their knowledge and ability than there is supply.)
Let's go even further away from the evidence-based treatments and outcomes, and raise another question: Should this space between buildings be used for lawn, garden, or a fountain? There is no scientific answer to that question. There are preferences, that vary per individual involved, and often their current/recent experience.
For example: I have a big lawn, because I have an active 9-year-old. As soon as she outgrows the run-around phase, we'll replace some of the lawn with a larger patio and a hot-tub (yes!!) that will be of greater use to my husband and me. If, in the meantime, we acquire a large dog we may opt to keep more lawnspace for the dog's benefit. None of these are arbitrary decisions; but they are value-driven, not "scientifically" determined. Science can tell you that having some kind of natural feature in your environment for daily interaction is healthy--that's why cities need parks and planter strips and windowboxes--but whether it's majority grass or a rock garden with shrubs and flowering grasses is a matter of preference.
The assertion that there are "scientific" ways of valuing is, quite simply, wrong. It is possible (in many cases) to map out rationally the most efficient ways to implement certain values once they have been selected; but there is no scientific way to decide whether jazz or Mozart should be taught to a clarinetist. There is only preference.
The central virtue of an individualist, monetary-based system is that it lets each person demonstrate their values by where they spend their money. If more people pay to hear jazz than Mozart, the classical fans will have to spend more per seat to support their interest. And as long as they are willing to pay enough, their symphony will stay in business. Musicians who dearly love a particular style of music will accept a lower income to play that, deciding that the pleasure they experience practicing and performing it compensates them for the things they aren't buying because of that lower income. Others may think that being a musician is what's important, and they will play the style that provides them with the most discretionary spending. Still others may decide that they will make music a hobby, because their preferred standard of living is not supportable on a musician's salary. Each makes their own choice, based on their own values.
Once you start spouting vaguaries of "technical and scientific perspective" you are trying to disguise the reality that some people will be "the deciders" and will enforce their decisions on everyone else. The only system that does not do that is one where people can directly demonstrate their preferences: That is called a "market".
Just my thoughts, Miss Kitt
