> So the zone where there is clear unambiguous science is very small, and it's generally not the zone of contention in politics. Stuff like "don't swallow arsen

> So the zone where there is clear unambiguous science is very small, and it's generally not the zone of contention in politics. Stuff like "don't swallow arsenic" -- it doesn't really help us to govern or solve any of our political questions. So, what, we should just make things up? Do you have some other decision procedure aside from the scientific method you would like to employ? > What we need is a better functioning public policy discourse that supports more course corrections, allows more people to air their views, and eliminates certain known distortions, like the influence of big money groups on campaigns. That's a hell of a lot more useful than pretending that scientists can be politicians or that politicians should be scientists. And what is going to inform that public policy discourse? Are we just going to talk at each other about our prior beliefs and implicit biases until one side gets tired? Or should we use the scientific method to answer empirical questions about the impacts of policy, and then debate which values we should use the knowledge gleaned therefrom to optimize? I know which one i'd prefer.