Verified by 
In response to Stephen Mason's excellent piece about how permeated even scientific research is by intellectual sloppiness and ethical myopia, I've been thinking along the same lines, but in terms of politics.
The torture "debate" is illustrative. The discussion of whether or not torture "works" isn't worth a second's consideration. That's not what's at issue. Either torture is an acceptable option for a government or it's not.
US and international law has long said it isn't. We were first in line to righteously condemn and prosecute it til recently.
So what's changed? Someone suddenly realized torture might work after watching an episode of 24?
Not just the scientific method, but rational, critical thinking skills are sorely lacking in the American public dialogue. My own theory is that this lethal combination of ignorance and apathy that is as American as apple pie is largely due to the influence of advertising.
In Spain, advertising is called "propaganda." (There's also a grocery store chain called CONSUME. Talk about truth in advertising!) Everyone knows it's bullshit. But in the States, the mercantile, false-grin-and-firm-handshake mentality has been normalized. People forget it's propaganda, not just information.
Professional wrestling: we know it's just a brutal dance but we (they) consume it anyway. Velveeta: we know it's not cheese. Hummers: we know we're not really Rambo of the suburbs. But on we drive.
Another maddeningly irrational "debate" concerns nuclear weapons.
Do we accept the notion of national sovereignity or not? If we do (and there is copious legal precedent saying we do), then other nations have every right to pursue whatever scientific research they choose. The premise of our righteousness is simply indefensible. It's an argument built on bullshit.
If your response is to ask, "Well, what would you suggest?" you've missed the point of the previous paragraphs. It doesn't matter what I'd suggest. What matters (at this moment) is whether the argument against other countries developing nukes is valid or not.
If we (and our journalists) would stop skipping past this essential cognitive step, viable options would present themselves.
