I'm not sure I understand what this means. Most policy prescriptions rely on empirical research and hypothesis testing. Government is applied social science.
Actually science does have something to add to discussions like that. In the case of social security, a quick Google scholar search led me to this: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9183.pdf
Science can help us figure out how our decisions will affect society. What society optimizes for is up for political discourse.
I only read the abstract but that paper seemed to be answering the questions about the age people retire at and what benefits the accrue.
That's informative about the trade offs - should we take money from X and give it to Y - but it says nothing about if we want to give it to Y. Maybe we all like X and if it's a penny for Y to have a holiday we'd still say "Screw Y." Maybe we despise X and will take the last penny of X to give to Y for no obvious benefit.
That paper can in some way help people make an informed decision but we live in a finite world and it doesn't, shouldn't and can't tell them how to make the trade offs.
> That paper can in some way help people make an informed decision but we live in a finite world and it doesn't, shouldn't and can't tell them how to make the trade offs.
^ Your comment sounds very much like my own (below), so I don't know what the disagreement is.
> Science can help us figure out how our decisions will affect society. What society optimizes for is up for political discourse.
Does Science favor a progressive income tax or a VAT as a way of raising revenue?