Science is the process of developing a more accurate understanding of our world. Observations generate theories to explain those observations. The theories are tested/observed to find inaccuracies in the theories. Those observations generate updated theories and the process rolls on until theories have been refined to the point where they accurately describe our world.
"Science" is a weapon; in turns a cudgel and a shield. Something used to tell people to "shut up" and do as they are told by their betters. In most cases, our "betters" are those that believe in "science" rather than science.
I frequently get into these discussions involving "science". Rarely do such discussions involve much science.
As an example, many people got the vapors last summer as the delta variant of the Wuhan/Covid-19 virus became more prevalent. This was at a time when people were more inclined to begin resuming a more normal lifestyle in the wake of the Trump Shots with summer in full swing.
The media was awash with stories about how there was a 300% growth in cases in just a few weeks. "300%" is a big, scary number. But the reality is that cases across the United States were nearly at an all-time low. We had a few hundred new cases every day instead of having thousands (if not tens of thousands) showing up every day. While a 300% increase in near all-time low levels was certainly not pointed in the right direction, it also wasn't presaging an apocalypse.
It was another marker in the process of a pandemic becoming endemic. Without context, the alarmism about a 300% increase in cases was an example of semi-innumerate "science".
Another topic where I find myself arguing with the faithful believers in "science" is global warming. There are a great many theories about global warming. Some of them have science to back them up - at least partially. There is quite a bit of evidence that some of the theories need another few rounds of testing and revision before they will be useful for policymakers.
As an example, we are told that the number of hurricanes and the intensity of hurricanes will increase worse due to climate change. One need only wait for the next hurricane story to receive that lecture. Yet the long-term trend beginning early in the 20th century and continuing until today is for a slight decrease in the number of hurricanes and the severity of hurricanes in the Atlantic. The last time I checked, typhoon frequency and strength showed a slightly increasing trend; certainly nothing to justify the hyperventilation being exhibited by the faithful.
There is a reasonable concern about warming on the peninsula of Antarctica. There is a large volume of ice on the peninsula that could cause problems. Studies have been published in the usually accepted journals indicating that Antarctica is currently in the midst of a decades-long cooling trend and it is accumulating snow and ice. Will the faithful adjust their worldview in response to this scientific information? Probably not.
The same journals also accepted an article written about the statistical methodology that has served as the basis for assigning the relative cause of global warming to either natural or human-induced causes. Essentially, the model that was developed in the 1990s contains fundamental errors that render any results derived from it to be nearly useless. Will the faithful pause to reassess their translation of that flawed information into policy? It is unlikely at best.
Other studies have been published in the same journals indicating that project[ions]s of future environmental conditions underestimate the variability of various climatological factors. They also underestimate the uncertainty that underlies the results from their models.
One would think that an accurate understanding of the scope of anthropogenic climate change relative to the change in climate due to natural cycles of the atmosphere and the heliosphere would be critical to crafting sound public policies. The faithful seem to be incurious when it comes to relevant questions about the size and scope of climate change.
Switching back to the Wuhan/Covid-19 virus, I was a strong proponent of wearing masks. Early in 2020, I made cotton/cloth masks at home that were donated to area nursing homes and other healthcare facilities. There was even a study done by the University of Virginia that suggested that such masks could reduce virus transmission by 50-70%.
Earlier this year there was another study done that seemed to suggest that cotton masks were less effective at preventing transmission of the virus; closer to 20-40% effective. Enough so that they are better than nothing, but not much better.
The difference in results may have something to do with the questions being asked. If one is looking at droplet transmission rather than particulate transmission, then cloth masks certainly seem to be better at containing the droplets being emitted by a Covid patient with a cough.
In any case, I have upgraded to using N95 masks whenever I am in a situation that demands a mask.
The point I'm making is that those that espouse "science" demonstrate little interest in counterfactuals; those pesky bits of information that undermine their preferred public policies.
One can acknowledge that human activities have had some impact on the climate. One can agree that the Wuhan/Covid-19 virus is dangerous and worthy of preventative steps. One can agree that the various flavors of sexuality that exist between the poles of "male" and "female" are worthy of respect and dignity.
But questioning their "science" is not allowed. Any deviation from their beliefs is cause for expulsion from their circle of faith; a heretic unworthy of forgiveness or redemption. The disciples in this holy house demand only penance and Inquisition.
