too causally dense for us to ... make accurate predictions. And even if we had perfect predictions, we would still have to choose what to do. For example, if

too causally dense for us to ... make accurate predictions. And even if we had perfect predictions, we would still have to choose what to do. For example, if we had a perfect economics, we could predict exactly how many people would be made unemployed compared to how many made how much richer by raising the minimum wage (or trade barriers, or taxes). How should we weight these? I think it's easy to greatly overstate how useful science is to policy-making. There are narrow areas where they should (and do) call a specialist in. But the big debates are not over factual, empirical, matters.