"Follow the Science"

I know I've written about this before, but I was reminded of it several times recently. One stemmed from a conversation I had last week about "the science." I was noting the contradictory orders from politicians and other government officials. I also cited how many times the orders have changed. My neighbor was defensive, "They are just 'following the science.'" So, I blew off a little steam. "That's fine, but they need to be honest with us. They make it up as they go and then claim they are, as you said, 'following the science.'" No, they are not! I reiterated "They need to be honest with us." Too many of us have ignored alternative views of "the science." I repeated what I've written a number of times. "The science is never settled. That is the essence of science." In fact, it's a very good argument for a liberal arts education. Another was a photograph of the President. He was alone, apparently engaged in a virtual meeting with other world leaders. Yet here he was wearing not one, but two masks! I would assume he has had the vax, that anyone coming remotely close to him or the White House has also been vaxed. For that matter, there was nobody else in the photo. Let's see, the science says, we are told, to get the vax. The chances of either getting the virus or spreading it are virtually (pun intended!) zero. After all, if we sill must do all that masking, distancing, shutting down, and more, why bother getting the vax? I thought the science told us it would allow us to get back to normal. Again, it appears we are being lied to or, at the least, deceived. The politicians' own words and actions disprove what they've said all along. By changing their minds and policies, they are telling us "the science isn't settled," aren't they? Again I ask, why can't they be honest with us? This leads me to believe the lies and deception are deliberate, involving something other than science. How often have we heard that in the past couple of decades, particularly now in dealing with CoVid-19, "The science is settled." The statement has been summarily used to push agendas, when debate is discouraged or even feared. It's been used to sway people who really don't know. How easy to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents by throwing out "the science is settled!" Who but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?" I guess the best example over recent years is "global warming," er "climate change"--or whatever the current term. Now it's how we deal with the corona virus. "The science is settled." No, the science settled. Science is never settled. That's the essence of science, that there are unknowns and that there is always something new, more to learn. But the phrase, "the science is settled" has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate, dissent, and challenges. It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, a sense of credibility to a viewpoint. Even more, it sways people who don't know much about an issue, but well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them. Again, no, the science isn't settled. Science is never settled. It's one of the important lessons I learned in my physics classes at Amherst. (I admit to not realizing it at the time. It took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!") Consider these. For centuries, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes ether). This was not disputed, not by anyone credible. And people accepted that because "Aristotle [Empedocles or some other Greek scientist] said so." (Other cultures had similar findings--Chinese, Indian/Buddhist, etc.) The science had been settled. No challenges allowed. In 1633 (If I recall correctly.), the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial, with the possibility of losing his life and being excommunicated (the death penalty of the soul), for challenging the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth. That he postulated the heliocentric theory of Copernicus and others almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul. The science had been settled. No challenges allowed. Several decades later came Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest of British scientists. Albert Einstein, in the 20th Century, remarked, "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort. Newton stands before us--strong, certain, and alone." Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize the "most genius" (Einstein's words) of Newton. Alexander Pope penned this poem, "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night. God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light." There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion. All this and yet 20th Century science has disproved many of Newton's theories, including Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others. For 250 years or more, the science was settled. No challenges allowed. And now I read that some of Albert Einstein's theories have been disproved. It was Carl Sagan, the astronomer/astrophysicist, who wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument. My position is mistaken.'" He added, "And then they would actually change their minds." So, the science isn't really settled. But apparently only scientists--well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization and sources of funding--know that. We should think about this the next time, whether it's climate change, how to deal with the corona virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled." It's not. It never is.