[codetrotter]

No. Why?

[newsclues]

It’s a process not an end state.

“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.

[codetrotter]

Hm.. I don’t see that distinction in this case.

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.

[brutusborn]

Your intuition of scientists updating views is wrong, see Kuhns scientific revolutions for more examples. Scientists generally stick to preconceived notions long after there is data to refute them.

E.g. heliocentrism, germ theory, cigarettes being unhealthy, lobotomies being optimal

[brutusborn]

Because science just updates our beliefs, it doesn’t produce ‘truths’ that we can follow. See the Problem of Induction or the Duhem–Quine thesis.

[hnbad]

What do you think truth is other than confident beliefs?

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.

[brutusborn]

You summarised my point nicely.

What we call ‘truth’ is just the beliefs we think are most accurate. ‘Just follow the science’ is silly because it essentially means following beliefs on faith without questioning whether they are the best theory. In many cases the better theory goes against the consensus.

E.g. mothers who ‘just followed the science’ and took Thalidomide caused their children untold suffering. They could have been skeptical but instead they had faith in science, which was unfortunately done badly.