This argument never made sense to me. It's the whole idea of, "you don't really want them(scientists) leading a nation." ...What? Why the fuck not? Are they not the ones who base their judgement on empirical data? Why shouldn't this be a criteria for the job description of the people who run our country? You know, the one over 311 million people. Sure ndt may not be the ideal candidate for the race, but it does not belittle the point. When dealing with something as important as humanity, I feel like the concept of government should include those with an strong scientific background to have a legitimate say in the way a government decides what is beneficial to society.

I'm not trying in any way to say that the idea itself is intrinsically bad; I'm just genuinely curious as to why people view this as a legitimate argument.