> Most of the [politicians saying "evidence based"] seem to have come to a particular position first, then cherry picked whatever evidence they could find to ba

> Most of the [politicians saying "evidence based"] seem to have come to a particular position first, then cherry picked whatever evidence they could find to back up that position. How is that different than anyone else, for example yahoos arguing on the internet? The idea behind "evidence based" is a recognition that public policy has almost always been opinion-driven, and that we should cite evidence in support of our policies before adopting them. Does that mean the evidence is correct? No. (Though even cherry-picked evidence is better than no evidence!). Does it mean you agree with the policy? Certainly not in all cases. But the idea is sound. I think what you're upset about is not the "evidence based", it's that there's a partisan lean to the use of the term and that your tribe, whichever it is, is still doing the opinion thing and doesn't like citing studies.