I think you&#x27;re completely correct. It&#x27;s politically poisonous because it promotes a legal&#x2F;corporate view of the world where you win by being glib, emotive, and persuasive, over a scientific&#x2F;rational view of the world where you win by modelling and predicting objective reality more accurately than the other side.<p>It&#x27;s easy to see how this destroys any possibility of rational policy-making.<p>It doesn&#x27;t help that most countries suffer from literally industrial levels of PR effort, media spin, and online astroturfing, all designed to persuade, influence, and manipulate, and not to inform.<p>See e.g. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;astroturfing-grassroots-movements-2011-9?op=1&amp;IR=T" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;astroturfing-grassroots-movem...</a> for a very incomplete list of examples.<p>The whole point of PR etc is to <i>deny reality.</i> So the idea that the other side might have a point worthy of respect is deeply problematic.<p>It would be true in a world where everyone had access to unbiased information, deliberately misleading the public was banned by law, and public education was a significant policy goal.<p>That isn&#x27;t the world we live in.