Conclusion = not impressed.

I agree with the basic sentiment (encourage support for science in general), but was the comic seriously arguing that was sufficient reason to select a candidate? Science is extremely important, but so are plenty of other issues in politics. Regardless of party, I can’t take a suggestion that a pro-science position overrides all others seriously. I hope there’s some missing context, such as he’s hosting fundraisers for all the pro-science candidates. Though even then the implication is pro-science = get money, regardless of other factors.

Ah, but what if all policy-making were to be evidence-based . . . ?

“Science CAN tell us what is the *right* thing to do” — No it can’t and you have given no reason to support your assertion. I have given a reason why science can *never* tell one what one ought to do. It is because science is descriptive and normative. Tell me how facts can tell me what values I ought to have. Observing that most people do X for reasons A, B or C does not tell me why I ought to do X.

“Darwin says love thy neighbour for reasons of mutual advantage” — Darwin says nothing of the sort. Social Dawinism??? Really?? You mean the people who gave us scientific racism, eugenics, imperialism, Nazism and fascism? You need to do better than glib tropes and crap you read on some web site. You’re aware of course that Steven Pinker is a laughing stock and E.O. Wilson has repudiated his former beliefs, right? You also have to do better than argument from authority. Give *reasons* for your claims.

Actually, there is a whole field of science devoted to “Morality”, among other things, in the form of studies on Behavioural Economics by researchers like Dan Ariely.

Science CAN tell us what is the *right* thing to do, and often it is the opposite direction of where your moral “gut instinct” would mislead you.

(Darwin says love thy neighbour for reasons of mutual advantage)

Too bad there’s no genius billionaire superhero science-enthusiast IRL who could do this.

Mike Lazaridis, only recently dropped out of “billionaire” status, has created and donated huge amounts of money to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

The only reason that Liberals can get away with nonsense like “Facts have a liberal bias” is because the Right has gone so far overboard in their hatred for intellectual elites and paranoid conspiracy theories that they’ve become a laughing stock. But liberals can hold nutty ideas too, just… different ones than those on the right.

The truth is that science is completely unable to inform us about what is the *right* thing to do. It can only tell us, given one’s objective is XYZ you need to adopt policy A and reject policy B. Science cannot point you in the right moral direction, it can only tell you how to get there.