It would literally be a techno-utopia. And, I would like that to be a reality. I think the government on Mars, if Elon Musk pulls it off, would be pretty close to said situation.

Evidence based policy making has been a thing for a decade.

I think it would be called a technocracy.

Evidence based policy making has been a thing for a decade. — apokrisis

Yes, but democratic polls calculate the popularity of opinions, rather than proving what is correct. I'm not saying it's easy to be politically correct, but I think that politically correct policies scientifically exist. For example, theoretically political scientists could calculate which policies would cause the least amount of harm to people or the economy, which would keep people the safest, the healthiest, the most educated, etc.

I think it would be called a technocracy. — Purple Pond

I didn't know that. Thank you!

Political problems are inherently normative, so it’s hard to see how you can naturalize them, i.e. address them scientifically. Sure, there are relevant empirical “how” questions, mostly economic, but the fundamental problems are “why” and “should” questions.

That said, Dewey had an interesting pragmatist’s view of democracy. He considered it a kind of experimental government and thought the main virtue of democracy is the same fallibilistc, self-correcting element that drives progress in science. It’s an attractive idea, but I still see a big descriptive/normative gap between politics and science.

The most intelligent approach to political philosophy I’ve yet seen is Rawls’s Theory of Justice. It’s been heavily criticized, but I still buy the main thrust of the argument, which is that these normative questions might be objectively decidable within a decision theoretic framework. In other words, Rawls argues for objectively correct political solutions using principles of rational choice theory.

To take a stance at long last, I would attempt to naturalize politics by framing the normative problems within a rational framework like Rawls’s, thus reducing the “should” problems to empirical “how” problems where we can lean on the tools of natural science. On the other hand, I don’t see how the implementation of rational, science-based policy is compatible with democracy.

Evidence should definitely direct policy writing and decision making. All that is necessary is for us to decide to do that. What on earth would interfere with such a sensible approach?

Take for instance policy about CO2 emissions. Evidence supports a policy of drastically reducing CO2 emissions as soon as possible. The details are laid out in clearly written statements and published. The public will read the policy and comply immediately. They will immediately start car pooling, bussing, walking, or bicycling to work, or take mass transit if they can find it. They will turn down their thermostats in the winter and will forego air conditioning in the summer. The public will voluntarily switch to a vegetarian diet. They will stop buying things that are not absolutely necessary.

Meanwhile, the economy collapses (as evidence predicted it would) before a new economy not based on fossil fuels can be organized. Much of the population no longer has to worry about getting to work, because their jobs and incomes have disappeared. Riots, looting, cannibalism, bestiality, and more result.

There is considerable evidence that it is difficult to get people to make sensible changes in their behavior.