> The science is only more reliable than non-science, not reliable in any absolute sense.
What "the" science?
The scientific method is proven to be a very good way to make predictions about the world based on observations. The body of scientific work built up is immeasurably valuable and incredibly good at predicting things.
Some random corporation or politician or person claiming to have The Science on their side, and that anybody who disagrees or questions them is a heretic and an unbeliever? That's not reliable and it's not science.
"The science" as a body of received knowledge refined from the rough consensus of a moment among working scientists is something distinct from the practice of actually doing science. The latter mostly interests those doing it, and mostly frustrates everybody else with its apparent wishy-washy attitude toward questions of public policy.
There isn't a "wishy-washy attitude", there is respect for the fact that the questions of public policy can't be answered by the consensus or lack thereof.
Only politicians and policy advocating 'scientists' cough Fauci cough are confident enough to make proclamations about the state of science. To their credit, no one seems able to hold them accountable when they falsely declare consensus and silence the voices in opposition
What "the" science?
The scientific method is proven to be a very good way to make predictions about the world based on observations. The body of scientific work built up is immeasurably valuable and incredibly good at predicting things.
Some random corporation or politician or person claiming to have The Science on their side, and that anybody who disagrees or questions them is a heretic and an unbeliever? That's not reliable and it's not science.