The Religion of Science and Its Consequences
17th October 2024
While one could interpret “Science” as referring to the epistemological concept of methodologies employed to discern truths, this seems incongruous in our particular context. Instead, “Science” seems to serve as a shorthand for a collective body of research: observations, experiments, and models related to climate change. This body of research presumably “tells us that the sooner we respond to climate change, the lower the risks and the costs will be in the future.”
Additionally, “Science” as used here goes beyond the descriptive by implying an ethical obligation to act in a certain way. This violates Hume’s is/ought distinction providing “Science” with a religious character. Blurring the distinction between science and religion (between descriptive and normative claims) leads to the “Believe The Science” disaster observed over the last few years.
Linguistically, “Science” is presented as the acting entity in the sentence. Rewriting the beginning of the sentence, “Science tells us” as “We have been told by Science” highlights how strange and ridiculous it is to have “Science” as the main actor (although, note, that it makes sense if you replace “Science” with “God”).