I've always thought it would be an interesting experiment for all (or most) proposed laws to be written as though they were scientific experiments, complete with:

• Hypothesis (what is the law intended to accomplish?),
• Metrics (how will effectiveness be measured),
• Effectiveness period (when will these effects be realized?)
• Success cnriteria (what is the minimum effect to consider the law effective?)
• Side effects (what might go wrong, and how will that be evaluated?)

There's probably lots that does not cover, but the main idea is that any new law comes with quantitative ways to determine its effectiveness against its stated goals. Any law that does not meet those goals in the predefined time period is scrapped.

But again, as Zeppo said, without an informed and interested electorate, it's all pretty much moot.

What missing is voters who care about or would pay attention to all of that, and honest news sources.

Look at politicized science for your answer. I know you were asking what would happen to politics and politicians if they followed the scientific process and followed the rules legitimately seeking the most correct answers, but what they’d do in real life is cherry pick data, use poor “n” and minimal data collection to steer the results how they want, then selectively interpret the data to support their narrative with clickbaity titles attached to the results. Just like industry funded science did for cigarettes or leaded gasoline.

But why do that when you can just appeal to emotion 👍

Politics is not science. A political decision does not rely on facts, it's a moral decision or a jump into the unknown, or it is a arbitration, a choice to make on allocating resources or choosing a path for society.

Now there is a lot of lies and wrongs they're saying, and it is a problem. But this is a problem with accountability and information. Media are a big problem. Political accountability and responsability is a big question and a difficult problem to solve. Science methods and knowledge can help, but they are not applicable for most of these problems.

They'd change the rules so they don't have to do that anymore, then make it illegal for anyone else to not do that.

very interesting, that could even help fight corruption. but what politician would ever make that a law? if you have the power to decide if you get to be lazy and tell lies, you will decide to be lazy and tell lies.

Does anyone know what high level politicians actually do on a day-to day-basis. Like, is there someone who works in the field or has had an internship on Capitol Hill or something that can enlighten me? The pols rarely draft their own bills. It's either lobbyists or staffers. Ron Desantis has been Iowa about 100x more than he's been in Florida. Seems like the job is not all that difficult and you can be absent just about all the time unless there's a vote on the floor. But, maybe my admittedly incomplete knowledge is wrong.

I suggest googling reproducibility/replication crisis or Francesca Gino or have a look at RetractionWatch. I wish your portrait of scientists were true but alas.

Great, not convince the politicians to make that law

They would dissolve into a puff of smoke.

It wouldn't be much different. Really what politicians need are more staff with science literacy and social literacy.

You see the failure of science in policing frequently where metrics get imposed that end up having bad results (there's a fantastic reply all about comstat). You need people with social literacy who can make better appointments and navigate these situations.

We could use better science literacy among media: writers, news anchors, etc.

I won't call wearing suits, talking on the phone, and lying work.

What would happen if politicians hat to work?