As a physicist in quantum sensing. I follow the science (opinion) of climate scientists as they're the experts of that field. And that opinion is constantly evolving, but I follow that.
Anything else is just being an armchair scientist.
A scientist is someone who found someone to pay them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ignoring ideas unless they came from a brand is the opposite of science. Then you drop your brand (physicist) and expect others to judge your opinion as more important. It didn't work. As a senior physicist in quantum sensing I'm invalidating your brand.
Are these scientifically founded opinions. Not necessarily, hence why "following the science" is valid if you are following experts in their field.
If you're a software consultant, would you take on the opinions from a marketing client on the best algorithm to implement for their solution? Probably not.
If someone put in the effort and time to throughly research the topic and draw an opinion from that. Regardless of their title or their funding, then why would you discount it?
I could after significant research as suggested. But that is a significant endeavour, hence following the opinion of the field is typically sufficient.
It's like a fronted developer making comments on kernel development and vice versa. It's both fundamentally code, but different fields.
“Follow science” and ‘follow “the” science’ are two different things, and we just need to go back in history to understand that humans did some horrible stuff because of “the” science.
To me when they say they “follow the science” it does not imply an end state. To me it only implies “everything we know so far”.
I am sure that if scientific results showed the opposite of their current idea, they would once again update their view.
Nothing can produce "truths". If you want absolute truths, pick a holy text and decide for yourself what absolute truth you can pin on it.
