The Religion of Science

 I see news sites such as CNN or BBC or NPR quoting politicians urging people to "trust the science" or "believe the science" or "scientists" or "scientific studies say", signaling that by the invocation of the term "science", what follows is something that contains truth, has gravitas, is significant or important.  On the other hand, I also see "science" invoked by purveyors of chemicals and machines which have been "scientifically" shown or proven to produce some claimed result, or that claimed results have been supported by or shown in "scientific studies". 

As a result, perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised that people are currently poisoning themselves with Ivermectin.  "Science" is a kind of Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval for things-that-are-really-complicated-to-understand.

Before the pandemic, the status of science or its public image was abstract.  By this I mean that when something that people in the scientific community announced a discovery or development, it was usually treated as entertainment or something that will make life better for everyone though we actually haven't built it yet.  Sometimes people will get upset, like with GMOs or evolution, but usually people say "how interesting" and move on to the next interesting or important thing.

 

Initially inspired by "US COVID origins report_ researchers pleased with scientific approach" see F:\..\_Downloads

The need for clear science communication.

The need for everyone to have a clear understanding of the assumptions being made when something is stated under the rubric of science.

The fundamental values of science.

The role of uncertainty in science.

Scientists are people too, they make mistakes ... but they are more likely to admit them, most times; or be caught.

Conservationist Matthew Miller argues that the terms ‘trash fish’ or ‘rough fish’ — as opposed to ‘game fish’ — are unscientific and contribute to the overfishing of native species. [Nature Briefing]