A case in point is the climate change debate. The calculated consequences of our CO2 emissions are such that everybody agrees that these consequences are bad (unless you are actively working to bring about the end of the world). Even climate change deniers don't argue that these consequences are OK. Instead they have to argue that the scientific estimates of the consequences are wrong. If you accept the scientific findings we must do something to combat GHG emissions, and that is science telling us how to govern.
More generally, I think there is a very broad consensus about many moral questions when posed clearly a such. If you ask: "Is it OK that poor children die because they cannot afford medical care?", even right-wing politicians will not publicly agree. They will argue that their policies help poor children rather than harm them. It is then up to (sociological/medical) science to demonstrate when they are wrong. What is needed for this is more thinking and more science ("reason"), not less! Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
I love your tag line
tomhuld:
Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
...in view of the fact that even a mention of astrology on this site is sure to bring the world down around you...
...there's only smoking that's worse....
<hides> "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
What about homeopathy, can you make fun of that? Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
I also agree that there is a very broad consensus that letting poor people starve in the gutter is wrong, even if it is in the short-term interest of the oligarchy. However, even when backed by a massive (if not quite unanimous - Uncle Miltie and his Chicago Boyz would disagree) consensus, it remains a political position, and there is no point pretending that it's scientifically supported.
In fact, I think it can be downright harmful to present what is inherently a political decision as a technical matter than can be unambiguously resolved through the scientific method. After all, Uncle Miltie and Maggie Thatcher got a lot of traction out of obfuscating the political decisions that underlie much of the economic science (and pseudoscience) that they used.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.