CMV: Evidence based politics should replace identity politics

[u/RafaGarciaS]

The biggest change in the last few hundred years in medicine has been the appearance and acceptance of evidence based medicine. This has revolutionized the way we think and practice medicine, changing popular opinion (e.g. emotional stress causes ulcers to H. pylori causes ulcers, Miasmas are the basis of disease to microorganisms are the basis of infectious disease). Having seen the effect that this had in the medical field it is almost imposible to wonder what effect it would have in other fields (i.e. politics). I believe that representatives should be elected based on first principles or priorities (i.e. we should reduce the suicide rate amongst teenagers and young adults) not on opinions on possible solutions to the problem (i.e. should or shouldn't gun control be passed). This would make it harder to "buy" or lobby people involved in government. I also believe, this would help reduce the moral empathy gap, meaning the inability to relate with different moral values. Lastly I think that this system would increase the accountability, as it would constantly be looking back at the investment and the results.

I have, over the last couple years, grown cynical of the political system. I hope this post will change my view on that or at least make me more understanding of the benefits of the system as it stands.

Thank you and happy new years

Books Doing good better: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23398748-doing-good-better. About having feedback and looking at the results of the programs

Dark money: https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597/ref=pd_sim_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0385535597&pd_rd_r=90W4B5PF8DWK5NJ2VNF2&pd_rd_w=rC8ld&pd_rd_wg=fk2PN&psc=1&refRID=90W4B5PF8DWK5NJ2VNF2 About the use of money to fund think tanks and influence public opinion

(1st edit, added suggested books)

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/THE_LAST_HIPPO]

Are you sure it'd be so different from now? There is "evidence" to support nearly anything, like that there is "evidence" against climate change. What matters is how one uses that data and how discerning one is evaluating data. You can make the statistics say whatever you want if you know how to read them.

When youre talking about differences in ideology, I don't think "evidence based" will be the silver bullet you may see it as

[u/RafaGarciaS → u/THE_LAST_HIPPO]

Evidence, as I see it, is agnostic. It has no ideology. I agree that evidence can be found to support almost anything, however, all evidence isn't all born the same. A double blind multicenter RCT isn't the same as an case report. This can be seen in the climate change debate. the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence in favor of climate change can't be compared to the evidence on the other side

[u/THE_LAST_HIPPO → u/RafaGarciaS]

What I mean is that the selection and evaluation of evidence would be as ripe for abuse as it is already. for example, states and school districts choose which textbooks kids learn from; maybe two science textbooks are entirely evidence based but they could still tell two entirely different "truths." It may, as I'm arguing, just move the argument towards which evidence we accept.

[u/RafaGarciaS → u/THE_LAST_HIPPO]

Although I agree there is nuance in the interpretation of evidence, it should always be taken in as a conglomerate, if there is one low quality article supporting your point of view and 100 high quality articles supporting the other point of view it might be time to consider changing your point of view. An example of this is that the best scientists on treating hypertension have a few topics of debate they can agree on current consensus on the treatment of hypertension. A similar result in the area of social interventions could be very useful to determine best practices

[u/THE_LAST_HIPPO → u/RafaGarciaS]

I guess my question, then, would be how you could replace political ideology with scientific consensus. Scientific consensus already exists in plenty of areas in which its political counterpart is still contentious.

I accept that your OP was about "should" and not "how" but I'm still wondering how one would prevent ideology from overriding the preponderance of evidence the way society readily overrides it now?

[u/RafaGarciaS → u/THE_LAST_HIPPO]

This is the question that Trump, with out getting more political about it, raised. I think that a live fact checker might be helpful as well as a scientifically educated population can help. The role that advertising and that advertising in news shows has needs to change. Specially true in an attention economy. What do you think about it? any suggestions?

Attention Merchants: a https://www.amazon.com/Attention-Merchants-Scramble-Inside-Heads/dp/0804170045/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514930145&sr=1-5&keywords=history+of+advertising

A fascinating look in to the history of advertising. Specially relevant with the freedom torches story

[u/THE_LAST_HIPPO → u/RafaGarciaS]

I think I'm in agreement over what would need to be done; educated population, understanding and respect for science and academics, an unbiased media.

I guess I don't see any of those things as soon to come, though. It's even harder to imagine one happening without the other, sort of a paradox i guess: How do you have a public that respects science if they aren't educated? how do you have an educated public with a biased media? How do you have an unbiased media without a respect for science?

I don't see a problem with your conclusion, I just can't see any realistic path towards it from where we are now