One of my favorite things to do around election time is to throw around statistics I’ve seen or heard, whether they are reputable or not. 
My next favorite thing to do is to give circumstantial examples of previous government programs and anecdotes of times when the good intentions of politicians either succeeded or failed to achieve their goals. 
In my life, statistics and examples have been a ready source of questionably accurate but nonetheless invaluable ammunition to shoot down opposing people’s opinions.
Most people, myself included, will usually accept an argument as true if numbers line up and there is a high enough correlation between two sets of data.  It would be silly not to, because we like to think along cause and effect lines that take into account one of my favorite tenets, Occam’s Razor. 
This, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.”
 One easy example of Occam’s Razor in action is the childhood story my dad would tell me of an invisible man who comes and puts sandy junk in your eyes during the night. 
It is in fact, according to Mental Floss Magazine, “a type of rheum, a thin mucus naturally discharged from our eyes, noses and mouths … made up of mucus, skin cells, oils and dust.” 
While the second idea follows from observable biology, the first idea requires it be possible for men to be invisible, get into my room while it is locked, put stuff in my eyes while I am asleep without waking me up and of course have some odd motive for doing all this.
Naturally though, I believed my dad as a child, because at that point in time it was actually more demanding to believe that my dad would be making this up and that my body does things by itself when I am not looking than it was to believe in imaginary characters hanging out with the tooth-fairy and Santa Claus and the rest of the group of strange people who break into your room at night.
Even though Occam’s Razor keeps us from making preposterous claims and having wild ideas, it is not always the safest idea to apply this principle. 
Just as in the case of a gullible child, sometimes we do not have all the information needed to make an accurate judgment. 
Descartes, in his “Discourse on Method,” in accord with Occam’s Razor, states the beating of the heart is due to the high heat of the heart. 
Descartes wrongly reasoned that, because the heart was hotter than the rest of the body, the liquid that entered it would expand a little and consequently fill more volume and flow out of the one-way valves of the heart’s cavities. 
He had a very good understanding of the anatomy, fluid dynamics and even of the thermodynamics of the heart, but the one key piece of information he lacked and would have been nonsense for him to postulate at the time because of its magical sound was the concept of an electrically pulsing and muscularly contracting heart.
In my opinion, social, psychological and political issues suffer from the same affliction as the rest of science.  All of this stuff is complicated and the real explanations sometimes invoke concepts that are easily looked over and not fully understood by many and only recently by the ones who do. 
I think our false sense of certainty comes from the fact that we are collectively the subject of the social sciences and therefore feel somewhat qualified to give our judgment on them, whereas we have very little experience as photons or calcium atoms and so do not feel the need to defend claims regarding them. 
The issues dealt with in politics and the social sciences are often just as difficult to fully grasp as the hard sciences, and yet we find ourselves roused to anger at the first mention of a new program or law concerning one thing or the other but are content to listen to crazy astronomers. 
In my opinion, everything would work better if important decisions were made by those people who are informed about the issues and most capable of taking the safest route to ensure the achievement of any societal ends. 
Honestly, I do not think politicians, lobbyists or even the voting public (including myself) are those people.
For now the system may work if I vote along where I think it will be best and if I trust the plans of politicians, but in the long run I would feel much safer if these issues were really studied scientifically, without bias and acted upon accordingly. 
This issue of issues is one I am very skeptical about.
In fact it doesn’t even sound like a real issue, but I continue to be appalled by the apparent lack of scientific concern I, most people and politicians have for the social sciences we are so keen to exploit in an argument.