I agree somewhat... data is just a bunch of numbers, but context and underlying assumptions and expected effects are what make the data meaningful, but that is where the differences are: we may ask agree that X is X, but we don't agree about what it should be or whether it's significant. I think "more scrutiny" is no different politically than "just look at the data." It's all about how people interpret everything and what they believe is important. Are you getting at how a policy may have good arguments for it, but the implementations are hardly looked at before they are passed, tend to have a lot of pork, and plenty of unintended consequences? I agree that there is a problem there. But if everything can be stopped by someone saying "what about this effect you didn't consider? I know it will be terrible!" then nothing would get done at all.I'm not convinced there is much evidence that 'data' is the answer. Everyone seems to be able to take what the want from data.