Right and regulation based on evidence would be a political principle and further we have to regulate nuanced situations all the time. Hence an entire branch of government usually set up to deal with the nuance of it.
Sure, but medicine differs from politics. Just b/c we have the mains to fairly consistently regulate one based on scientific consensus (and associated power-politics) doesn't mean it applies to all.
On that note: would you consider the decision-making process of the supreme court to be "scientific"? as opposed to, say, the FDA. If so, why, or why not?
