At Quillette, Ilana Redstone thinks science is a very good thing, but wonders why so many of our disputes are not solved by the adage “Follow the Science.” This is a thoughtful article well worth a read. Here’s an excerpt from “Why ‘Just Follow the Science’ Won’t Solve All Our Problems“:
I’m not arguing that there’s no truth out there. For many issues, there is—although we could certainly do a better job of recognizing when we simply don’t know what that truth is yet. And for issues that touch on morality and ideology, in particular—often topics on which opposing sides all claim the mantle of science—we might do well to pause before digging in our heels. Sometimes, what we have isn’t “science” per se, but rather a strong conviction tethered to a set of scientific data and propositions. True dialogue requires a willingness to recognize that occasionally our opponents do, too.
I have learned to delay responding to the “Follow the science” statements. Science yields facts in many cases, but not all. Physics is pretty well settled, except when it isn’t. I first encountered that when calculating power density in high-energy lasers. There is always a Delta in the divisor, because atmospheric conditions are rarely identical in two or more places. Something will always degrade the result from perfect conditions.
In the field of medicine, practitioners recognize that it is both a science and an art. Chemicals and microrganisms usually react the same way in the laboratory where conditions are constant. Introduce a patient into the mix and at some point things won’t work the way “the science” says they will; art steps in to correct that.