The Myth of "The Science"

There is no such thing as "The Science."  Science is not Facts and it is not Truth.  Science is a continuous series of inquiries that are both prompted and aided by observation, experimentation, and analysis.  The gathered information is subsequently interpreted through a grid of perspectives, experiences, and assumptions (both acknowledged and unacknowledged), and influenced by the purpose of the inquiry.  This exercise of inquiry sometimes leads to the formation of a hypothesis.   When a hypothesis is supported over time through repeatable results by inquirers with differing perspectives, experiences, assumptions, and motives, the scientist may propose a Theory. 

It seems to me that we have begun to speak of science as something altogether different from the description above which, as recently as my childhood, was a commonly shared understanding (perhaps not the exact definition which is expressed in my own words, but the foundational elements).  While I would expect hypotheses and theories to be constantly morphing,  I would not expect the definition of the discipline itself to change, nor would I expect new theories to quickly displace long-standing ones.  Yet we've moved away from science as inquiry and theory toward science as absolute, authoritative dogma. 

In our disputatious time, we wield the "ignoring the science" sword as if science is a codified, agreed upon, permanent Fact or Truth...which, of course, it is not.  One very obvious demonstration of that in our current climate is that a variety of scientists whose bodies of work are held in high esteem, are drawing disparate conclusions about the nature of The Illness and our responses to it.  There are limited explanations on how this could be.  Either the variables of observation, experimentation, and analysis are producing conflicting data, or the grid through which the data is being interpreted, or the purpose of the inquiry are different.

I find it particularly curious how a person might exalt the opinion of one body of physicians or scientists as authoritative while labeling those who exalt the opinion of an opposing body of physicians or scientists as "ignoring the science."  Both sides are educated.  Both have inherent biases.  Both have varying motivations.  Both have expertise.  Neither has a corner on Fact or Truth.

If it wouldn't be "better," it would at least be more honest if we ALL acknowledged that not only we, but those voices (learned and otherwise) that resonate with us are not purely objective, and  "The Science" is merely informed speculation and not a justification for shame-based insults.