That was not my position. Let me try again, with more careful use of pronouns:
When some "authority" (some random internet commenter, or the CDC, or Facebook, or whoever) politicizes science, and people detect that they're doing so, then those people tend to "flip the bozo bit" on that authority. That is, they tend to discount any further science-based claims from that authority, because the authority has destroyed its own credibility.
What you're describing also happens, along two paths. Sometimes it happens as a result of what I described - if you've burned your credibility, and now you're claiming "science says X", people may say that you're politicizing the science without actually checking, because you politicized it last time. It also happens because some people just don't like what you're saying and don't want to believe it, and "you're politicizing the science" gives them a convenient excuse for ignoring you.
But my point was going the other direction: When you[1] politicize the science, you set your credibility on fire, and I[2] will no longer believe you when you say "the science says".
[1] "You" meaning not the parent, but anyone claiming to speak authoritatively.
[2] "I" meaning not I, AnimalMuppet, but people in general listening to authoritative statements.
> When some "authority" (some random internet commenter, or the CDC, or Facebook, or whoever) politicizes science....
What does that mean though?
For example, I would hope most people on HN accept that our current best research indicates that climate change is a real thing and a problem.
But given that (apolitical) starting point, you then need to do something with that information, and that is inherently political. Even doing nothing with it is a political position (the position that government should not interfere).
OK, take climate change. Here's the data. That's not politicized (or at least, that's not what I'm talking about). "Vote Democrat, because climate change" is politicized. And when the Democratic program is going to not actually address climate change in any meaningful way, then people tune out on those who say "but science" to tell people how they should vote.
Or take vaccines. The data is there that vaccines are helpful. But "get vaccinated or you're a Nazi" is... something else. It's politicizing. It's also stupidly ineffective, because what you're saying is ridiculous, and people know it. So they tune you out.
But the problem in both those cases is that one group are dismissing the data. The Democrats might not being doing anything about climate change, but half of the Republicans are flat out saying the science is a hoax.
I'm really trying not to make this about be a one-sided "left vs right" argument (god knows, there are enough dumb ideas on the liberal side around "alternative medicine"), but the two most pressing issues right now (climate change and covid) are markedly worse on one side of the aisle.
That's not "politicising the science", that's acknowledging reality.
One thing that is beyond vexing is that politics comprises both policy and tribal allegiance. I have no interest in the latter but it seems impossible to discuss policy without tribalism crashing the party.
Maybe I'm uninformed, but the nazi/vaccine correlation I've seen have been likening being told that one should get vaccinated is similar to the holocaust.
