Facts are bad.

Yes, yes, they are. It’s well known (though clearly not a fact) that all facts adduced in argument by people we do not agree with are evil. Facts undermine fiercely-held convictions with their wicked, scientific factiness. If there’s one thing you don’t want to base policy on, it’s facts. You want policy to be aspirational, moral, and above all, based entirely on perceptions of how the world ought to be. Ideally, policy should be a mishmash of actual misinformation and pathetic misunderstanding, sprinkled with wishful thinking and deep-seated prejudice.

Consider some examples. Let’s start with sex. Sex is always a good area for examining the terrible impact of facts. The Cervical Cancer jab was opposed by some because it would cause sexual promiscuity. These are presumably the same people who don’t want children to get sex education either, on the basis that they would prefer that teaching children about icky stuff be a bad idea, when the facts actually suggest that good sex education reduces STDs and pregnancies, while its absence does nothing to prevent actual sex from happening. Do you see? Fact-based policy in this area goes against the way people were raised, and the utterly baseless convictions they cling to. Facts are challenging religious and moral beliefs and eating way at the basis of society.

Then there’s the environment. Lots of people deny that there’s any such thing as climate change. Many of these people do so on the very sound foundation that they want there not to be any such thing. It’s cruel and economically unviable (that’s not a fact, by the way; there are strong evidentiary reasons to believe the green economy could be excellent) to force people to pay attention to what’s actually there.

And then, of course, there’s this whole business with the sacking of David Nutt, which makes perfect sense as long as you agree with A N Wilson that

The trouble with a ’scientific’ argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts.

He is so right to pick out empirical facts as the weakest sort. The other kinds of facts – such as divinatory, suppositious, or speculative facts are infinitely more suited to policy making. The real world, as we know, is composed not of facts or solid objects, but opinions. I narrowly avoided a nasty bruise earlier today when I reminded myself that the coffee table I was tripping over was in fact debatable. I am, however, suffering from a really unpleasant phantom pain in my leg, which I suspect is caused by scientists beaming microwaves around London from the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

In other words, let’s have less of these facts which are evidence-based, and more of the hope-based facts, the facts of conviction, conjecture, and imagination. Those kinds of facts, after all, were behind the massive success of the global economy in recent decades. It was only when the whole thing was suddenly called to account by idiots with empirical facts in their heads that the arse fell out of the financial trousers.

Dr Ben Goldacre and his ilk are wrong about all this being bad science. It’s not bad science. It’s good science. It’s non-empirical, common-sense, hypothetical/propositional science. Science which doesn’t talk back. Science which does what it’s told and doesn’t make a fuss. Science which behaves like a good citizen.

These days, people aren’t afraid to call for citizenship exams for foreign-born individuals becoming UK nationals. Maybe it’s time we demanded a test for scientists before they’re allowed to receive their degrees. A sort of pledge:

I do solemnly swear to uphold the existing preconceptions of British society,

No matter how ridiculous or ill-informed they may be.

I will not counter the will of our political masters, who know the interests of the British people often better than they know themselves.

I will not rock the boat, nor through inaction allow the boat to be rocked. I will not claim there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor suggest new drugs policy without permission. I will not suggest that the banks are going mad. I will water the tree of stupidity where it benefits the government.

I will not upset the people of this country with my highfalutin’ talk. I will not suggest that Britain is not the greatest nation on Earth. I will be snide about the Dutch and their crazy marijuana-smoking ways. I will mock the French health system. I will agree that windfarms are noisy and that this is much worse than an energy crisis or the collapse of the biosphere. I will agree that German trains are less good than ours, even if there are sound qualitative and quantitative studies which suggest otherwise. I will support the economic argument for nuclear power, even if I feel it makes no sense.

I will agree that vaccination is more dangerous than disease.

Above all, I will do as I am told, and not let the facts interfere with what people wish to believe.

Amen.