I like all of that, but is there really a scientific consensus about those things? I don't think so. Most seems to be disputed.

▲

kuerbel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Hmm what do you mean by disputed?

There is mixed but often promising evidence depending on context. For example there is quite a bit of urban planning evidence that shows that walkable environments improve physical activity and health outcomes and other outcomes. And so on for the other topics.

It’s also worth noting that current systems are not the result of a unified scientific optimization process. So even incremental changes that are supported by good evidence seem worth seriously exploring.

▲

lukan 6 hours ago | parent [-]

With disputed I mean mainly that whenever there is a study linked here for example (drug decriminalisation shows benefits) - there is a heated debate about it. And also links shown to other studies. I know that elements of the established medicine in germany for example are highly critical of decriminalisation. So - if something is disputed (rightfully or not) it is not hard to see why it is not allways implemented.

	▲	swiftcoder 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> whenever there is a study linked here... there is a heated debate about it There are tons of people in this world who don't believe in evolution, but there aren't a whole lot of scientists who doubt its validity - laypeople debating science is worth about what you pay for it. The only interesting question here is whether there is debate in the scientific community about these topics.

▲

JuniperMesos 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Also, do you trust the scientists? Or the scientific establishment that decides what practitioners rise to the level of being trustworthy?

	▲	_DeadFred_ 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. I've found most of the people who don't trust don't want to trust, not they actually don't trust, because they know nothing about the bodies that establish this, the standards they hold, specific issues that cause their loss of trust. Zero real background. What actual bodies that establish credibility/verification do you currently not trust? What examples of their failures prompted you to stop trusting them or even be interested in the topic of if they were trustworthy gatekeeps? Most of the time that answer ends up having personal politics as the root, not actual trust issues that actually occurred and got the doubters attention. Normally if they have any examples they are politically sourced/politically generated laundry lists, not authentically generated concern or personal knowledge/care of the topic past wielding as a political weapon.