Can not agree more with you on this. In reality quite a lot of "smart" people with science or engineering degree are not very scientific in their heart. They just blindly be trained to use scientific methodology to do their daily job. A lot of academically competitive people don't understand a very simple fact: Those who are already deceived can not find they themselves are fooled. So anything that's controversial need to be resolved by the approaches other than reasoning based on their own strong beliefs while considering the opposite side are evil.

Even on HN, quite a lot of HNers can not differentiate their strong beliefs, which might be generated from indirect sources like MSM or activists, from solid facts. i.e. something can reach consensus of normal people by verification. The Massive Weapon of Deception can be effectively used again and again if that matches the majority belief.

There is no single truth in the complex topics that politics considers. People will always approach problems with solutions grounded in their values.

For instance, say crime is a problem in an area. How do we address it? Do we encourage everyone to arm themselves in defense? Do we establish additional surveillance and arrest/detention ("broken windows" policing)? Do we address the root problems of crime?

The best that we can hope for is that we come to a shared understanding of the current reality: What is the crime rate? Who are the victims? Why is it happening?

Once there is a shared understanding (provided by science), then we can discuss solutions (guided by values/compromise).

The problem is that science is messy, and hard to synthesize for the general public. Just think of all the frustrations around mass media reporting of individual research results (Eggs are bad for you!, Eggs are good for you!). Results are often nuanced and resistant to becoming a meme or a headline. They are often themselves subject to bias and spin.

The best that we can hope for, and that we can strive towards in good faith, is being open to the evidence. "When the facts change, I change my mind." And hope that people in power appreciate this position as well.

My penultimate physics teacher worked in some air pollution research lab for the government - on some policy related issues they would basically be told "Here's the result, get us some data - or else..."

At some point all this comes down to ethics and choice: who do you want to be.

There no level of technical education that can fix that. You need either live examples and/or possibly a background in philosophy. That said philosophy doesn’t answer, at some point you still have to “choose”. Easy? No. We learn to avoid responsibility since childhood. Better diverge the responsibility of choice elsewhere.

Ethically compromised Scientists funded by vested interests may also use their credentials & processes to create the appearance of the scientific method while practicing pseudoscience. These ethically compromised scientists may also form an unofficial political coalition in the peer review process.

They also might get into a drunken fistfight! I heard one of them got caught speeding!

What, exactly, is your point? "Corruption exists"? We know that.