I was having this exact discussion with a philosophy of science major a few days ago. We were both bothered by the current fetishization of science.
It's troubling that otherwise well-educated, logical people have come to elevate science as this god-like authority, and scientific consensus as the source of all truths.
The discussion came to Kuhn and the often touted belief in popular culture that science is not always completely right but in essence it's one big model of nature that keeps getting better and so we should trust it implicitly, while ignoring the concept of paradigm shift that arises specifically from people outside the consensus. Coupled with the fact that dissent gets blurred with denialism, and that the absence of evidence has come to mean "evidence of absence" on the news, it's become really tricky to discuss things critically without being openly mocked.
I wish I had time to read more philosophy, even as a scientist you learn a whole bunch about science, it's really enlightening.
The discussion came to Kuhn and the often touted belief in popular culture that science is not always completely right but in essence it's one big model of nature that keeps getting better and so we should trust it implicitly, while ignoring the concept of paradigm shift that arises specifically from people outside the consensus. Coupled with the fact that dissent gets blurred with denialism, and that the absence of evidence has come to mean "evidence of absence" on the news, it's become really tricky to discuss things critically without being openly mocked.
I wish I had time to read more philosophy, even as a scientist you learn a whole bunch about science, it's really enlightening.