zlacker

At 41, I'm not sure I'm old enough to comment on "how things were", and I'm not enough a student of history as I should be. But I believe the current trend across the globe is from democracy to autocracy[0], and toxic political polarization[1] is moving opinions so far apart as to effectively eliminate meaningful discussion about compromise or allowing yourself to change your opinion closer to what you believe to be a wholly terrible if not blatantly false perspective.

To rephrase, I don't think most discussions around policy involve providing peer-reviewed studies with relatively conclusive evidence in regards to a potential policy change, or objective evaluation of the communication, legislation and vote records of politicians. It is too easily converted into ad hominem attacks, bold assertions that one might believe have evidence but if (quite) thoroughly investigated might be disproven. More regularly each side dismisses the other based on strongly held beliefs formed on very shallow investigation.

[0] https://www.v-dem.net/en/publications/democracy-reports/ (specifically https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/de/39/de39af54-0bc5... PDF)

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00027162188187...

>>neogod+(OP)
On most of the political issues dear to me, it is impossible to have a scientific study decide the truth. To believe that science could; that would be replacing morals and beliefs with scientism, not far removed from religion and ultimately a worship of intellectual authority and the elite.

>>lldbg+P
David Hume pointed out the problem with trying to draw moral conclusions from objective knowledge [0]. Since many political issues are essentially moral—what we should or should not do—the power of scientific studies to resolve them is limited.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem