The Student Room Group

Why do people listen to politicians instead of scientists?

Scroll to see replies

Why do you keep making the same threads?
Firstly, you can probably find "experts" saying the opposite thing.

Secondly, experts tend to abuse their reputation as a scientist and venture into politics.

An example is the sugar tax but equally it applies to drugs and everything else.

You get medical doctors saying we should have a sugar tax but they are simply not qualified to say. They are only qualified to talk in medical terms about the harm sugar causes. An economist can advise on the likely effectiveness of a tax in reducing consumption. Ultimately though, it is a political decision to be made by a politician

There are positives and negatives for an policy but whether the positives outweigh the negatives is entirely an opinion. It can only be made by our elected representatives. There is no right answer.
Reply 22
Original post by JordanL_
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?


Firstly, there's the role of ideology. If the evidence conflicts with someone's ideology, they'll continue to support policies that run contrary to the evidence. On cannabis, those who think taking any recreational drug is a stain on society will support policies that ban drugs, even if the evidence suggests that cannabis criminalisation does no good. If mass surveillance did a lot of good, and prevented an incredible number of terrorist attacks every year, then those who care about liberty in the abstract would still oppose it, even if they currently argue that mass surveillance does no good anyway.

Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an excellent piece a while back, titled "Is That Your True Rejection?". As he wrote:

Before you stake your argument on a point, ask yourself in advance what you would say if that point were decisively refuted. Would you relinquish your previous conclusion? Would you actually change your mind? If not, maybe that point isn’t really the key issue. You should search instead for a sufficiently important point, or collection of points, such that you would change your mind about the conclusion if you changed your mind about the arguments. It is, in our patois, “logically rude,” to ask someone else to painstakingly refute points you don’t really care about yourself.


Thus, the fact that people have fundamental moral disagreements with each other which can, at best, be resolved by rational argument and delving into moral philosophy, is the first reason that people listen to politicians (that they agree with) over the evidence.

Secondly, people don't have time to research evidence-based policy. (EDIT: Well, they do, but they don't care. People spend all their time watching reality TV shows, buying things they don't need at shopping malls, and sleeping). They'll rely on the science reporting in newspapers, which is very often atrocious and/or biased, as John Oliver covered recently on his show, Last Week Tonight.

I would say that those are the top two reasons: the usual suspect - cognitive biases such as confirmation bias - as well as practical difficulties such as time.

Original post by Sternumator
Firstly, you can probably find "experts" saying the opposite thing.

You get medical doctors saying we should have a sugar tax but they are simply not qualified to say. They are only qualified to talk in medical terms about the harm sugar causes. An economist can advise on the likely effectiveness of a tax in reducing consumption. Ultimately though, it is a political decision to be made by a politician

There are positives and negatives for an policy but whether the positives outweigh the negatives is entirely an opinion. It can only be made by our elected representatives. There is no right answer.


You can resolve disagreements between experts, and probe their arguments to discover who is right or wrong, though. You're essentially arguing, here, that there's no right answer to factual, empirical questions, but there is.

The OP is saying that the politicians are getting it wrong on factual, empirical questions that are answerable, not value-judgements.

Let's take the sugar tax. Medical doctors are qualified to say whether we should implement a sugar tax. Their role is to improve the health of the population. Public health officials' jobs are to improve the health of the general population. I agree that politicians should make policy decisions based on the synthesis of all of the experts' views, but the OP is saying that politicians don't make evidence-based policy decisions, and that they are allowed to do so by the electorate, who actually believe politicians instead of looking at what the experts have to say, and he's asking: why?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
Firstly, there's the role of ideology. If the evidence conflicts with someone's ideology, they'll continue to support policies that run contrary to the evidence. On cannabis, those who think taking any recreational drug is a stain on society will support policies that ban drugs, even if the evidence suggests that cannabis criminalisation does no good. If mass surveillance did a lot of good, and prevented an incredible number of terrorist attacks every year, then those who care about liberty in the abstract would still oppose it, even if they currently argue that mass surveillance does no good anyway.

Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an excellent piece a while back, titled "Is That Your True Rejection?". As he wrote:



Thus, the fact that people have fundamental moral disagreements with each other which can, at best, be resolved by rational argument and delving into moral philosophy, is the first reason that people listen to politicians (that they agree with) over the evidence.

Secondly, people don't have time to research evidence-based policy. (EDIT: Well, they do, but they don't care. People spend all their time watching reality TV shows, buying things they don't need at shopping malls, and sleeping). They'll rely on the science reporting in newspapers, which is very often atrocious and/or biased, as John Oliver covered recently on his show, Last Week Tonight.

I would say that those are the top two reasons: the usual suspect - cognitive biases such as confirmation bias - as well as practical difficulties such as time.



You can resolve disagreements between experts, and probe their arguments to discover who is right or wrong, though. You're essentially arguing, here, that there's no right answer to factual, empirical questions, but there is.

The OP is saying that the politicians are getting it wrong on factual, empirical questions that are answerable, not value-judgements.

Let's take the sugar tax. Medical doctors are qualified to say whether we should implement a sugar tax. Their role is to improve the health of the population. Public health officials' jobs are to improve the health of the general population. I agree that politicians should make policy decisions based on the synthesis of all of the experts' views, but the OP is saying that politicians don't make evidence-based policy decisions, and that they are allowed to do so by the electorate, who actually believe politicians instead of looking at what the experts have to say, and he's asking: why?


I'm not saying there aren't empirical facts. What I am saying is that all policy decisions come down to value judgements and that is the role of the politician to explain and persuade that their view is right.

Take ops drug example. Even if you take it to be empirical fact that banning drugs leads to more deaths, more addiction, more crime, and doesn't affect how many people use them, you still haven't answered the question of whether drugs should be banned.

Those "facts" may be enough to persuade the OP that drugs should not be banned but there will be people who would still want drugs banned. Perhaps for religious reasons. And who is a medical doctor to tell them that the scientific reasons outweigh the religious? That is where politicians come in. It is there job to answer the should drugs be banned question?

I think op isn't really been open minded in understanding that other people's values are different.

In Saudi Arabia more weight is probably given to theological experts than scientific experts. Neither is wrong it is just that in this country, we have different values to people in Saudi Arabia. That is why we have politicians who are supposed to represent those values.

Of course politicians and the electorate have finite time, finite cognitive ability and finite interest in politics so opinions will never be 100% informed. Unfortunately, that is just a fact of life.
Reply 24
Original post by Sternumator
I'm not saying there aren't empirical facts. What I am saying is that all policy decisions come down to value judgements and that is the role of the politician to explain and persuade that their view is right.

Take ops drug example. Even if you take it to be empirical fact that banning drugs leads to more deaths, more addiction, more crime, and doesn't affect how many people use them, you still haven't answered the question of whether drugs should be banned.

Those "facts" may be enough to persuade the OP that drugs should not be banned but there will be people who would still want drugs banned. Perhaps for religious reasons. And who is a medical doctor to tell them that the scientific reasons outweigh the religious? That is where politicians come in. It is there job to answer the should drugs be banned question?

I think op isn't really been open minded in understanding that other people's values are different.

In Saudi Arabia more weight is probably given to theological experts than scientific experts. Neither is wrong it is just that in this country, we have different values to people in Saudi Arabia. That is why we have politicians who are supposed to represent those values.

Of course politicians and the electorate have finite time, finite cognitive ability and finite interest in politics so opinions will never be 100% informed. Unfortunately, that is just a fact of life.


It doesn't have to be.

It is why the far right are making such large gains in elections - because people are pissed off at politicians.
Reply 25
Original post by Sternumator
I'm not saying there aren't empirical facts. What I am saying is that all policy decisions come down to value judgements and that is the role of the politician to explain and persuade that their view is right.

Take ops drug example. Even if you take it to be empirical fact that banning drugs leads to more deaths, more addiction, more crime, and doesn't affect how many people use them, you still haven't answered the question of whether drugs should be banned.

Those "facts" may be enough to persuade the OP that drugs should not be banned but there will be people who would still want drugs banned. Perhaps for religious reasons. And who is a medical doctor to tell them that the scientific reasons outweigh the religious? That is where politicians come in. It is there job to answer the should drugs be banned question?

I think op isn't really been open minded in understanding that other people's values are different.

In Saudi Arabia more weight is probably given to theological experts than scientific experts. Neither is wrong it is just that in this country, we have different values to people in Saudi Arabia. That is why we have politicians who are supposed to represent those values.

Of course politicians and the electorate have finite time, finite cognitive ability and finite interest in politics so opinions will never be 100% informed. Unfortunately, that is just a fact of life.


I agree that politicians have to make value judgements, but when politicians claim that they should pursue policy x because it leads to effect y, when all of the evidence suggests that it doesn't, then that's a bad thing. And, this happens so often so as to be worth mentioning.
Original post by JordanL_



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


"Evidence-based policy" sounds like a neutral term but it isn't.

Activists use "evidence-based policy" as an exclusionary term to limit the type of material to be taken into account in decision-making to the type which they are themselves wishing to rely upon.

"Evidence-based policy" does not increase the stock of material taken into account by decision-makers. It reduces it.

Take something like A Fresh approach to Drugs

http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/a-fresh-approach-to-drugs-the-final-report-of-the-uk-drug-policy-commission.pdf

The report notes at the outset that drug use in the UK is falling from a higher base than elsewhere and rates if HIV infection amongst drug takers is amongst the lowest in the world.

It then goes on to trash existing drugs policy. The point is that the reducing current levels of drug abuse and low HIV infection are treated as a boon from heaven, not a consequence of current drugs policy. That isn't a issue that the panellists wish to explore. Most of the rest of the document is consequentialist "there is evidence that B follows A" so we are invited to infer that B is caused by A but no inference is drawn for these two big consequences; reducing levels of drug taking and low HIV infection. If an outsider raises that point, the panel's answer will be "but you have no evidence of causation". Effectively "evidence based policy" has acted as a selective gatekeeper to exclude a tale the authors don't want to talk about.
Original post by viddy9
I agree that politicians have to make value judgements, but when politicians claim that they should pursue policy x because it leads to effect y, when all of the evidence suggests that it doesn't, then that's a bad thing. And, this happens so often so as to be worth mentioning.


It's rare that they outright lie. It's too easy for them to get caught out with outright lies. They select the research that supports their case and quote that. They talk about the research that supports their side of the argument. That is what they are expected to do.
Most scientists are aspie neckbeards who can't hold a conversation with someone let a lone orchestrate a speech

Quick Reply