ABSTRACT
A successful democracy requires informed citizens who can critically evaluate proposed policies. The current spectrum of voters extends from the critical thinkers to those who are ignorant or cynical. A simple exposition of the differences on issues between left and right political viewpoints is presented. A successful democracy depends on a respectful contest of ideas between the two sides. When there is a movement of one side to extreme positions, this puts democracies in danger. Movements to extreme positions manifest when one side doesn’t accept the verdict of the people, when there are attempts to silence the opposition, when there is a lack of humour, and when there is a tendency to distort facts. An argument is proposed that scientific thinking could make a useful contribution to political debate. This idea is applied to the controversy on anthropogenic global warming which seems to have been distorted into a political issue rather than a scientific one. Some aspects of the hypothetico-deductive scientific method are discussed in relation to the controversy.
