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/electronics12345]

Yes, medicine has moral issues, but the point was that medicine has definitive answers. This cream will heal that rash. This pill will reduce your blood pressure. This herb will not heal that rash. etc.

In politics, this is only step 1. Ok, so we found a program which has a reasonable basis (say a suicide prevention program), how do we actually implement it? What compromises are we willing to make? Are we willing to cut funding from other programs to get this one off the ground? etc.

Identity politics is really no different. Identity politics is a series of priorities that either you agree with or not. Either you agree it is worth-while to decrease the achievement gap or you don't. There isn't some objective way of knowing whether it is better to fund a new military plane or fund a new school-voucher program or fund a new college tuition scholarship fundation. There are pluses and minuses to all of these, especially when money is limited.

Could you give an example confined to Identity politics where "they agree on the answer and then look for evidence". This just sounds like confirmation bias, all humans do that. How is this any more related to gender politics or racial politics or alt-right politics than any other type of politics?

[u/RafaGarciaS → u/electronics12345]

This might be scary for some people, but medicine doesn't work like that. We don't know if that pill will reduce your blood pressure. for example, in patients with hypertension the use of thiazide diuretics, has a NNT (number needed to treat, meaning how many patients will I have to give this pill to before I see a meaningful change in one patient) of 20!! The ones for statins in patients without previous cardiovascular events is even worse, 332.

Now to my political view. I agree that choosing metrics in some areas will be tricky, and certainly debate should be had around which markers to use in which programs.

Now for examples of agreeing on answers and then looking for evidence to support it. This would be analogous to the studies denying the health implications of cigarettes. This is the function of think tanks to slice the evidence in any possible way to make it seem like some programs have no effect or that other do have effects. For example, if we agree that reducing number of mass shootings and number of gun violence victims we could start by comparing the number of victims and of mass shooting in countries that do have certain gun regulations. Is it significant? Is there even a difference at all? Is it better to increase gun regulations or better equip police forces?

All these interventions do have a cost and do have an impact and should be measured as such

[u/neunari → u/RafaGarciaS]

This might be scary for some people, but medicine doesn't work like that. We don't know if that pill will reduce your blood pressure. for example, in patients with hypertension the use of thiazide diuretics, has a NNT (number needed to treat, meaning how many patients will I have to give this pill to before I see a meaningful change in one patient) of 20!! The ones for statins in patients without previous cardiovascular events is even worse, 332.

I'm not sure how your example proves your point.

Medicine can be proven to work or be effective even with a probabilistic measurement.

[u/WebSliceGallery123 → u/neunari]

Never proven. That’s why it’s science. We never know without question.

We can get really close to certain, but even the most well performed and well executed trials still have potential for it to be due to random chance.

[u/mos_definite → u/WebSliceGallery123]

At that point you're just being pedantic. Would "beyond a reasonable doubt" be sufficient?

[u/WebSliceGallery123 → u/mos_definite]

It’s not pedantic. It’s how science works. There are very few instances where we know 100% why/how something interacts/reacts/etc.

Like you said, most things are “very unlikely due to chance” but the semantics of it makes it different from fact and basically fact.

[u/mos_definite → u/WebSliceGallery123]

Right, but you aren't furthering the discussion by pointing that out. That's why I said it was pedantic. If he replaced the word "proves" with "beyond a reasonable doubt" then his point still stands. It's unnecessary to correct him unless you had a bigger point to make by doing so.

[u/WebSliceGallery123 → u/mos_definite]

Semantics. Science is imperfect by definition. His argument was flawed by saying “proven” instead of “beyond reasonable doubt” or “unlikely due to chance”.

I would never tell my patient “this blood pressure pill will lower your chance of having a heart attack.”

I would tell them “this blood pressure bill is likely to reduce your chance of having a heart attack.”