“Precisely what politicians think is less important than how they think”

David Tredinnick, MP in the UK House of Commons, is concerned that the cycles of the moon affects surgeries, pregnancy, and hangovers (though he doesn’t mention werewolves). He has attempted to expense around 750 pounds on astrology software, and is a fan of homeopathy as a treatment for various conditions (including malaria), also known as medicine for which there is no evidence. Unfortunately, he also has a seat on the House of Commons Committee that oversees the Ministry of Health. Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed similar views, at best seeking to use what David Halpern calls ‘spray-on evidence’ to justify it, evidence that you pick after you’ve decided what you think.

The problem isn’t limited to the UK, of course. The Geek Manifesto argues that there is an opportunity to improve the situation: to force politicians to actually care about evidence and science, instead of ignoring it. Henderson doesn’t care what politicians think, or what side of the aisle they’re on: he cares that they use evidence to support their opinions, and base their judgments on facts and studies, not guesses and assumptions. The answer is to mobilize the geeks of the world, which he would define as those who care about evidence, and use them as a voting block to force evidence-based policy. Hence, Geek Manifesto.

Most of us would agree, I suspect. Unfortunately, he underplays how difficult it can be to rely on data even when it disagrees with our assumptions. He even falls into the trap on occasion, suggesting that teachers shouldn’t be accepted based on school performance, when the data does suggest teacher intelligence and ability does matter in student outcomes. Finding and using information that disagrees with us is something we all struggle with, potentially most of all intelligent people, because they are so good at convincing themselves why a study might be biased or wrong. I don’t know how to fix that, but I know it’s a challenge.