It is not the task of politicians to decide what science they like. Their task is to take into account scientific knowledge in their decision, whether they like that knowledge or not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/08/white-house-blocked-intelligence-aides-written-testimony-saying-human-caused-climate-change-could-be-possibly-catastrophic/ …
-
No, it's not. It's their task to represent the electorate. Whether or not the electorate actually understands the rationale of their decisions is secondary. You'd think, of course, they'd make an effort to explain it, but, well.
But if the electorate doesn't care, isn't the politicians representing them accurately? I guess I'm saying representing the electorate and acting in the electorates interest isn't necessary the same thing. Politicians won't change unless acting irrational makes them unelectable.
![[ColeJ]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1043000626056065024/vDRPnUpt_normal.jpg)
-
-
I don't think they're acting irrational and I don't think the electorate doesn't care.
-
I mean irrational in the sense of ignoring scientific data, not irrat. in the sense that they'd act against the incentives inherent in the systems they navigate. I think we'll have to disagree about the part of the electorate that votes for those politicians. I hope you're right.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.