Why do people listen to politicians instead of scientists?

Because it's a democracy. I agree that politicians are a history of going against expert advice, but to be fair they were elected (ish) to make the decisions, and the experts weren't.

So what? How does living in a democracy stop people from basing their opinions on facts and evidence?

An international commission of medical researchers concludes that banning drugs leads to more deaths, more addiction, more crime, and doesn't affect how many people use them. Theresa May (with a degree in geography) says we need to ban more drugs. People applaud Theresa May.

Leading teachers and education academics say that proposed education reforms will harm student's education. Michael Gove (degree in English) disagrees. People accept the reforms.

Technology experts, ISPs, security professionals warn that the Snoopers' Charter will put all of us at risk, while not actually stopping any terrorism. Theresa May disagrees. People go along with it.

Why do people listen to completely unqualified politicians when thousands of knowledgeable people say they're wrong? Why are people ignorant or arrogant enough to form their own opinions based on a few minutes of research, and think that people who study these things for a living are all wrong?

People "consent" to the reforms because short of forcing the government to resign the politicians have been given our mandate to make these decisions. Of course this does not mean they will respresent us well on every issue, but that is always an assessment we have to make before voting.

In terms of whether or not people actually agree, well... People do campaign and protest against the Snoopers' Charter and Gove's educational reforms. Teachers have held strikes and so on.

Sadly sometimes people are just not looking for experts to provide fresh insight, they just want to have their own opinions confirmed. They have always suspected that teachers are useless, schools need changing, all drugs should be illegal and the internet is evil. They don't want to hear otherwise, especially when that might mean more tax.

Just because they're a scientist doesn't mean they have a clue about the real world, ethics, economics, defence etc. Also when you look into the various things they are claiming they are either relatively unproven, biased based on their own political view or there are many pieces of evidence that disprove their stance. Still I agree too many throw out findings without sufficient research or listening to the politician.

Even scientists get it wrong sometimes. Anyone remember the MMR autism scandal?

But why do people consent? Why would people repeatedly elect an anti-science government? There has to be some problem in our society that causes people to ignore qualified scientists and come to their own conclusions instead.

As for people protesting, it's a tiny minority. A recent poll found that most people don't even know about the Snoopers' Charter. And while there did seem to be a huge amount of teachers protesting the education reforms, the general public seemed completely apathetic towards it. It seems like, unless we're talking about immigration or the economy, people aren't interested.

Many politicians have more of a 'persona' than some scientists; also, politicians have the power to actually change the laws whereas scientists can only publish their findings?

Experts can be biased as well and usually have differing opinions. The Thick Of It summed it up quite well: "You have spoken to the wrong expert, you've got to ask the right expert. And you need to know what the expert is going to advise you before he advises you."

For significant protests to happen people need to be engaged enough to find out what's happening, educated enough to understand the evidence and believe that their voice could actually make a difference or matter. And even then there's dinner to be made, the kids need to be picked up, the car needs to go in for its MOT...For a whole range of reasons the majority of the population is just not going to finds itself gathering together and protesting.

But people could listen to scientists and vote for a party that's going to implement evidence-based policy.

Because politicians generally have think-tanks, experts and scientists helping them in designing and choosing policies. It's not like they're making their decisions own their own. It's just that many experts have differing opinions and sometimes expert opinions do not translate into good policies. Often many political goals conflict with one another, where experts can only state, what choice leads to what consequence.

One expert states that banning drugs leads to more deaths, more addiction and more crime, while another expert states that legalization of drugs will lead to more widespread use and a considerable increase in regular users. A politicial decisions will now have to be made. An environmental expert states that cutting down on coal mining and burning fossil fuels leads to cleaner air and a better environment for people whereas an energetics expert states that decreasing fossil fuel output greatly harms the coal industry leading to tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and increasing power costs - once again, a political decision will have to be made.

In any case, I think you're jumping the gun here. Politicians do listen to experts and scientists, but at the end of the day they are beholden to their constituents.

Even scientists get it wrong sometimes. Anyone remember the MMR autism scandal?

Because politicians generally have think-tanks, experts and scientists helping them in designing and choosing policies. It's not like they're making their decisions own their own. It's just that many experts have differing opinions and sometimes expert opinions do not translate into good policies. Often many political goals conflict with one another, where experts can only state, what choice leads to what consequence.

One expert states that banning drugs leads to more deaths, more addiction and more crime, while another expert states that legalization of drugs will lead to more widespread use and a considerable increase in regular users. A politicial decisions will now have to be made. An environmental expert states that cutting down on coal mining and burning fossil fuels leads to cleaner air and a better environment for people whereas an energetics expert states that decreasing fossil fuel output greatly harms the coal industry leading to tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and increasing power costs - once again, a political decision will have to be made.

In any case, I think you're jumping the gun here. Politicians do listen to experts and scientists, but at the end of the day they are beholden to their constituents.

Just because they have them, they don't necessarily listen to them. Think-tanks and advisors are a total waste of money. ****, when the drugs advisory panel suggested that cannabis should be reclassified, Labour sacked the boss and shut them down. Their expert advisors say what they want to hear or they lose their jobs.

There's a huge difference between one expert saying something, and there being a consensus among a field. There's a global consensus about fossil fuels. There's a global consensus about drug criminalisation. These aren't throwaway comments by a couple of academics.

But why are their constituents so opposed to evidence-based policy?