I’m not attributing it to little-s science, I’m attributing it to “believe in science” - people are using “science” to mean something different than the scienti

I’m not attributing it to little-s science, I’m attributing it to “believe in science” - people are using “science” to mean something different than the scientific method and following evidence where it takes you. It’s being used as a proxy for authority. “Believe in science” was used to defend the (wrong) stuff in my comment, it’s a proxy for believe authority or believe media. If we want people to understand the value of science we should share the evidence and explain what the hypothesis is with the nuance and uncertainty present rather than patronizingly play 3D-chess because we assume the public is too dumb to know what’s good for them. Some people and institutions did this, but most did not. Science as an institution is no stranger to this kind of bullshit either: radical mastectomy and halsted’s “theories” of cancer, skinner and behaviorism (really all of psychology due to the replication crisis), mendel’s peas being ignored for 40yrs, phrenology, etc. When it becomes believe the authority instead of about the evidence bad things happen.