Read on Twitter
For my whole life, I’ve been like an obnoxious cheerleader for “science,” I’ve been called a new atheist and a believer in scient*ism* with no eye for life’s spiritual side. I’ve been very exercised about the creationist menace and climate deniers. But like, come on
Who looks around right now and thinks, “The real problem with science is that it hasn’t been communicated to people hard enough that it has a political valence” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/
Actually, Make Portland Normal https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/why-portland-is-wrong-about-water-fluoridation/
It’s my opinion that the left is better on science in general than the right, just like the right is better on religion in society or economic incentives being a thing. But not the sort of opinion I’d assert as fact even in an opinion piece
Does nobody acknowledge their own biases anymore? Isn’t that what science-mindedness demands?
And like, wielding “science” as a cudgel is, at the very best, not what studies suggest would be effective communications strategy for increasing public confidence in science
And like, wielding “science” as a cudgel is, at the very best, not what studies suggest would be effective communications strategy for increasing public confidence in science
Science has no commandments. It doesn’t tell you not to fly around Europe. It doesn’t tell you whom to vote for. It doesn’t say things. It finds things, provisionally. It is very good for figuring out how to build rockets, it’s worse at human stuff.
It can’t even figure out if eggs are healthy, and it really doesn’t know whether it’d be better to slow the economic growth rate of the third world to limit carbon emissions. Acting like it does is unscientific hubris.
