Before I get into my opinion on this argument, I want to make sure we all get on the same page when it comes to terminology. Stolen wholesale from
lifehacker.com because they stated this way better than I was going to:
- Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside."
- Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
- Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
- Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
I have no problem with the process of discovery. I have a problem when someone states something as fact and ridicules others as if its blasphemy because science says so.
I have a problem when someone uses the process of discovery as an excuse to not follow guidance from scientific leaders.
This is the exact line of reasoning that leads to people who:
- Don't wear a mask
- Don't socially distance
- Take their covid-19 positive children to school/daycare
- Believe vaccines give you autism
- Believe the earth is flat (in 2020)
But let's take a deeper dive at the language used:
I have a problem when someone states something as fact
Remember, facts are things we can directly observe. So, what facts are being stated that are in fact false? That infections in the US are going up? That deaths in the US are going up? These are things that can be observed, and are thus facts.
Maybe the intent was that we take hypotheses too seriously.
and ridicules others as if its blasphemy because science says so.
This appears to be the crux of your argument, that you believe all opinions are equally valid and we should treat them as such.
I don't agree with this suggestion, and never will. Maybe y'all will think I'm an a$$h@!e, but I'm going to side with the people that have MDs and PhDs over our Donald "it is what it is" Trump and his enablers.
In normal times, this is something we could have a real substantive debate over. For example, I'm not going to ridicule someone for not believing in evolution and I'm willing to have a good faith debate over it.
But when the world is collapsing around us, the time to debate is over. We need to take seriously any guidance given to us by the people who know the most, and if that guidance changes over time we need to be agile. Far too many people are not willing to take this guidance seriously, and it is directly causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their lives.
And that is where we come back to "ridicules others". Let's say you're in a burning building and a firefighter is telling you to leave the room. If you refuse to listen to the expert, you kind of deserve to be ridiculed.