My point about science and polticw was that there are attempts for politics to become more scientific, but politicians (along with big business managers, to a d

My point about science and polticw was that there are attempts for politics to become more scientific, but politicians (along with big business managers, to a degree) want definitive answers, not equivocation and hypotheses that haven't been proven. Thus we get "scientists" guiding them based on their political views, charisma or communication skills, not on the actual evidence. I am not advocating for anti-intellectualism, but I am notimg that there is a reason for mistrust of science: it too can be abused to push an agenda by "acting" before the science can give you clear answers. Examples include Jean Mayer and Ancel Keys in nutrition (heavily influenced The first US policy on nutrition via George McGovern in the early 70s); Greenspan in economics (free money for far too long, pushing the belief the financial market wouldn't screw itself over even though they have time and again) On the other hand I'm actually kind of happy that the Internet has made a meritocracy of expertise via blogs and mailing lists - credentials are too easily abused.