[remarkEon]

Can you name one? Because I can name dozens of examples of policy making based on expert consensus that ended up not only wrong but catastrophically so. That's not really the point I was making, however, which was more constrained on the idea that I somehow have to listen to people write papers instead of people who actually have skin in the game. Parents have skin in the game, and you can tell which kids have a social media addiction from a football field away.

>Science, when done properly, is the antidote to that. Many things are counterintuitive and involve levels of nuance that just aren't accessible to a layman.

So what? This thought train leads to regular people not having a say at all, because they're stupid or somehow unequipped to read a paper, which is very funny to me. If "layman" (i.e. a stupid person who doesn't have the time a sophisticated multi-variant regression analysis of the impacts of social media usage on children) looks around and decides that he wants to vote in favor of banning the thing that's causing problems, that's America, baby.