What's bothered me the most is how the far left has at times used the credibility of science to justify what they believe. At times science comes close to justifying them, but I've found a lot of times it doesn't justify them at all. When you examine these lapses, you find that what they promote is pseudoscience, not science. Trying to get them to admit to it in these instances is like trying to do a root canal on them without anesthesia. The religious right has a similar characteristic with creationism and Intelligent Design.

In one interaction I had with some on the far left I finally found out that they don't like rational argument at all. What it comes down to for them, even if you strip away all of their rationalizations, is, "This is what I believe, and I'm sticking to it." There's no place to go with them once you hit that point. I finally realized that it was all a waste of time, because there's no possibility that their mind will be changed even if you totally flatten their argument. It's like trying to tell a devout Christian that God doesn't exist. I'd have more compassion for leftists, and be more willing to leave them alone, if they didn't try to impose what they believe on everyone else, which interestingly is the same complaint that liberals used to put forward about the religious right.

I guess I wasn't clear. In my original comments I was focusing more on the impact that these polls will have on elections. In your hypothetical scenario I would agree that that should not be a basis for policy. Regardless of that, though, whoever ignores this sentiment may be voted out of office, and replaced with someone who believes it is a valid basis for policy. So I was saying, "Public opinion does matter when it comes to policy, whether it be informed or ignorant." The point I was trying to make in the original discussion is that the science is one thing. Policy making is another. The two are not necessarily connected, nor is it necessarily healthy for them if they are. Science is (or should be) about following one's intellectual curiosity, testing one's ideas, and opening them up to verification and criticism. Politics and policy are about finding a "happy medium" for organizing our society. They have different goals, just by their nature.

If most people are not convinced that a policy goal is warranted, then that sentiment is going to have far more of an impact on the process than any scientific information, unless the public is convinced by it, which in the scenario I'm presenting it is not.

In short I was saying that scientific findings do not equate to policy. Public opinion matters in the realm of the latter. It should have no bearing on the former.

Suppose the majority of the public believes that (say) global warming isn't a problem because the Bible says that God will not destroy the earth again. Is that a valid basis for policy?

My friend posted on her facebook page an article about how cruise ships are polluting the ocean because they dump human waste into the water. I replied that the ocean is teeming with creatures that poop, that I'm pretty sure a blue whale makes a really big poop and that the ocean is hardly a cesspool in spite of all these living things pooping in it. She responds with a snarky lecture of the "wonders of the ocean" and how we are not part of the ocean's ecosystem and therefore have no business putting our poop in it.

Well. Silly me.

Evergreen, I think that might have been my sis-in-law in the SUV in the bike lane in Florida. She's all about saving the whales.