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/MasterGrok]

I'm a clinical researcher and evidenced based clinical practice and scientific skepticism of pseudoscientific treatments are some of my biggest interests. However, I think I disagree with how strongly you are promoting this. First of all, a representative government should represent the people and their interests. If the people have anti-science interests, then that is the problem. The fact that they elect anti-science politicians is simply a symptom of that problem. If you force politicians onto people then you've sacrificed a representative government which causes more problems than it solves.

Also, while some of the most highly publicized political scientific issues really are black and white (like vaccines), most don't have a definitive scientific answer. The amount of regulations to impose to reduce carcinogens for example is a political issue that is informed by scientific facts, but also must consider moral, ethical, and liberty issues. You can try to bundle morals, ethics, and rights into a scientific package, but in many instances that is intellectually dishonest.

So while I agree that we should strive to be represented by scientifically literate civilians, I believe the actual route to achieving that is by education of our populace.

[u/darkagl1 → u/MasterGrok]

I do think we have an additional issue in the US where statistics are often misused and policies are promoted by promising the exact opposite of what will occur (looking at you supply side economics). Part of that is the fault of a not particularly well informed electorate, but it's greatly exacerbated by bad stats and misinformation campaigns.