I've been thinking about this piece all day and I can finally articulate what my problem is with it. Science is the rejection of authority in the 'authorial' s

I've been thinking about this piece all day and I can finally articulate what my problem is with it. Science is the rejection of authority in the 'authorial' sense of the word. Pre-scientific thinking relied almost entirely on authorities to determine what was right or true. Science is thus the rejection of the notion that an authority of any kind is a substitute for evidence. Scientific knowledge, when presented as an authority is thus just as abhorrent as text from any other authority. We scientists trust it because we often have no other choice, but also because over decades of training we have all done the labs to actually see these principles operate first hand. Thus we accept the principles based on our own experience of them. I hate to say it, but if someone hasn't had at least some exposure to a laboratory setting of some kind, or experimentation of some kind, then the fact that scientific knowledge is "right" is completely lost on them, and it is indistinguishable from any other knowledge from authority. Belief in the scientific process might be a substitute, but at that point it is no different that belief in revealed truth -- right for the wrong reasons means failure is just as likely.