Strength in Argument

A serious public relations problem has developed for “science” lately in that President Trump is often characterized as an “anti-science” president partly because of his choice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services, but also because some of his other policies often do not follow established schooling, like his tariffs. While “anti-science” might well be a real problem somewhere, there is also the serious problem of the opposite nature, blind faith in science. One cause of blind faith in science is a failure to recognize the differing strengths in argument various things often considered science have.
Actual science or science “ceteris paribus” is considered “proof” and no one argues with it. No one argues what the boiling point of water is. That is because all the other factors that might influence the outcome of a test are held the same (ceteris paribus) so that the effect of changing one and only one factor, like temperature in this case, can be clearly seen. That can give the temperature at which water boils.
All the “laws” in science have likewise been “proved.” No one argues how long it will take an obect falling under gravity to reach the ground. No one argues the lawa of motion or where the object will hit the ground.
No one argues the gas laws.
No one argues the laws of thermodynamics.
All those have very considerable strength in argument. They do indeed count as “proof.”
What has far less strength in argument is statistical analysis. It cannot have the same strength in argument because there are too many factors that cannot be held the same. With statistical analysis there is no pressure to find the “correct” answer because there isn’t one. It all depends on which factors are considered in a survey. Even if extremely large surveys are made it can still be impossible to see which factors influenced what outcome.
When you encounter the complaint, “Why don’t more people just follow the science,” it is because it does not and cannot have the same strength in argument science ceteris paribus has. Some people are not “following the science” because it is only blind faith in science, which surprise, is not science.
What is happening is that people who might be employed in some field related to some science are offering their otherwise unqualfied opinions instead of conducting the actual proof required by science ceteris paribus.
It is not so much that anyone is against science. What they are against is being told what to do by people confused what actual science is.
Notice a trend.
If people are put on an intelligence spectrum from lowest to highest intelligence, the people in the higher intelligent half of the spectrum tend to prefer less government, more free market than command economies, and often prefer more thoroughly established morality. The people in the lower intelligent half of the spectrum tend to prefer more government, more command economy than free market economies, and often challenge thoroughly established morality.
The good question then is whether the people who were trying to run the world with bad science are the same people as “Democratic Socialists”? It has just been explained that statistical analysis is not very good proof of anything. Social Democrats are just a curious development then.