3 ms·
It’s a process not an end state. “Follow science” and ‘follow “the” science’ are two different things, and we just need to go back in history to understand tha
by newsclues 3y ago
It’s a process not an end state.
“Follow science” and ‘follow “the” science’ are two different things, and we just need to go back in history to understand that humans did some horrible stuff because of “the” science.
- codetrotter 3y agoHm.. I don’t see that distinction in this case. To me when they say they “follow the science” it does not imply an end state. To me it only implies “everything we know so far”. I am sure that if scientific results showed the opposite of their current idea, they would once again update their view.
- brutusborn 3y agoYour intuition of scientists updating views is wrong, see Kuhns scientific revolutions for more examples. Scientists generally stick to preconceived notions long after there is data to refute them. E.g. heliocentrism, germ theory, cigarettes being unhealthy, lobotomies being optimal