Those words struck me as well. Science isn't an absolute. Science doesn't come with any inherent authority or credibility, despite what zealots and academics would have you believe. We shouldn't follow the science. We should consider the science, as well as other factors.Hahaha! I saw this and thought of two people. Any ideas who?
Authority has always been located in hierarchical structures of expertise, guarded by accreditation and long apprenticeship, whose members develop a “reflexive loathing of the amateur trespasser”.
This
The phrase “follow the science” has a false ring to it. That is because science doesn’t lead anywhere. It can illuminate various courses of action, by quantifying the risks and specifying the tradeoffs. But it can’t make the necessary choices for us. By pretending otherwise, decision-makers can avoid taking responsibility for the choices they make on our behalf.
WE
Increasingly, science is pressed into duty as authority. It is invoked to legitimise the transfer of sovereignty from democratic to technocratic bodies, and as a device for insulating such moves from the realm of political contest.
Over the past year, a fearful public has acquiesced to an extraordinary extension of expert jurisdiction over every domain of life. A pattern of “government by emergency” has become prominent, in which resistance to such incursions are characterised as “anti-science”.
Science is clearly at a crossroads given the events of the last year. Science has been damaged like never before, due to the so-called experts. I will say it for the umpteenth time, science can tell you what happened, but it can't predict the future. I'm not saying to ignore science, but take it with a huge grain of salt, and always question it. Be particularly skeptical when the science message is put into the hands of one individual like Fauci. He became the prophet of a new religion. Don't dare to question the prophet.