Sparrow whistle from the rooftops: Science is calling for tough measures to better combat the third wave of Kovid, until the population is yet to be widely vaccinated. Politicians oppose it and largely expect (and perhaps in vain) that it will somehow diverge from what science predicts in the event that nothing changes.
I can agree with the call for strict measures. On the other hand, the sentence mentioned above gives me a stomach ache. In this “science” appears as a unified actor who makes confident and articulate demands with confidence. This is a problem.
but why? Is it not the case that there is a large-scale scientific consensus on what is currently politically necessary? Have other references not described the same thing for years (for example, when it comes to climate protection): “science” that makes reasonable demands when appealing and delaying political decision makers?
One might justify difficulties with this way of speaking as a philosopher, as philosophy has always dealt centrally with science, and here many difficult simplifications on the subject are placed one over the other. First of all, the science is the same with the thumb of the thumb. It is not the linguists or archaeologists who make the demands here – after all, it is always about subjects that can be illustrated with photographs of test tubes and other glass equipment. It is then suppressed that scientific practice is always characterized by conflict and possible error and cannot really speak with one voice and appears as “science”. And third, it appears as a party with unified science specific interests.
It’s not just natural science
But there are many sciences that are not natural sciences. Interestingly, the mass consensus within non-natural science disciplines is much lower than in life sciences. For example, economists agree a little more that wages will not decline due to increased immigration, and there is almost complete agreement in German linguistics that the German language is neither decaying nor threatened, but both Comparisons of viewpoints are expressed relatively clearly in the media.
Currently there is a widespread consensus exception to “science”
In contrast, in all sciences – whether they are in the laboratory or not – differences are known about how to interpret this or that phenomenon. There are various streams of theory and competing interpretive models; There is also exception to the broad consensus currently attributed to “science”.