2 ms·
Follow the science is only used as a rhetorical device outside of science to try and convince people of something political. You would never hear an actual rese
by version_five 5y ago
Follow the science is only used as a rhetorical device outside of science to try and convince people of something political. You would never hear an actual researcher say that.
There is a realistic, weaker statement about the best available information we have, that a specialist could use to explain to a non specialist why they are making a recommendation about something emerging or theoretical. But what we are hearing with "follow the science" really means follow the carefully crafted political message that politicians with scientific credentials have put out.
It's easy to see a distinction. Nobody needs to be told to follow the science on antibiotics or birth control or something. I think the blatant anti-intellectualism in the follow the science type statements is why we have so much worry about vaccines e.g. People aren't stupid and they can tell the difference between being manipulated and being presented with something objective. Even if you're right, it's a bad strategy to try and trick people or use religion to get your point across. See "the science is settled". Nothing makes people stop listening faster.
Edit: and ironically, people call those who don't "follow the science" anti-intellectuals, as if intellectuals take things on blind faith. Every time I hear mention of anti-intellectualism, I have to remember that people are referring to those that question official doctrine, as opposed to those who have framed religion as science to try and short circuit debate.
- caddemon 5y agoTotally agree. I do think most times I hear people saying "follow the science" they are saying it to someone that is being anti-intellectual. But at the same time the "follow the science" people usually give horrible counterarguments that contain straight up inaccuracies too. I don't know what annoys me more. A fun one that circulated for awhile when the vaccines were first launching was "all vaccines are the same". They are decidedly not, and I don't think people are as stupid as that kind of messaging implies. It was weirdly taboo to say that you'd prefer a particular vaccine, even once we got to the point that there was enough stock to choose. It's true the clinical trial efficacy numbers shouldn't be literally compared to one another, but that doesn't mean we should pretend the vaccines are actually the same either. Somebody deciding to drive an extra hour so they can get an mRNA vaccine is not anti-science lmao.
- ziml77 5y agoMaybe it's a matter of perspective here. Any (tested) vaccine is better than no vaccine. So if you're just looking to be in a better state than no vaccine, then they are all equally effective at that. I have nothing to back up this theory other than knowing that it's common for nuance to get lost as things get repeated over and over, being distilled down to phrases that are easy to parrot and being twisted as details are misunderstood like a game of telephone.