From an old facebook post I figured that it would be good to preserve here.
Science tells us what the world is doing and why (to the best of our knowledge, and it may be proven totally wrong later). It does not tell us how to fix a problem, or even that there is a problem – just that a doing thing A leads to B by current understanding.
Interpreting the results and finding ‘something must be done to correct this’ is beyond science and gets moved into philosophy.
Example:
Science: Rhinos are being killed by poachers at a rate of X per year. Their reproductive rate is Y per year. Their average lifespan is Z. At the current rate, Rhinos will be functionally extinct by W year. This will cause V consequences to their native habitat as evidenced by studies of habitats where Rhinos have been hunted out.
Philosophy: The loss of Rhinos is a bad thing that hurts the ecosystem. poaching is immoral, and measures should be taken to curb or stop the killing before it’s to late. We should take X measures to regrow the population to previous levels and maintain a healthy ecosystem.
Scientific research currently tells us the world is warming due to the machinations of man.
Whether we should do anything about it, or even how to go about ‘doing something about it’ is where the actual controversy is, and it is beyond science to determine. This something the ‘I Fucking Love Science, Niel Degrasse Tyson followers, and March for Science’ types fail to realize. They’ve conflated the science and an interpretation into a single entity, and in so doing have created something not at all unlike a religion – With all the evangelism, dogmas, and heresies that entails.
