>>14392129>How do we protect science against the growing anti-science sentiment?You need to understand, this isn't an anti-science movement.
It has to do with trust and credibility. Politicians trade this shit between themselves as if it were some sort of commodity. In fact, you could think of it as the most important currency for a prominent politician. Science generally won't function without trust and credibility. It was only a matter of time before politicians decided to steal or borrow upon this strong base of credibility and trust for their own personal gains. Once one did it, it became free game for them all to do it. This often happened behind the scenes, not in plain view. At some point, this transactional even became public view, and as our public leaders they set the example for all of us. Now everyone and anyone can steal upon the trust and credibility that science has built for themselves. It's easy... all you need to do is lead your statement with "scientists say...."
It's and escalating event. Once the flood gates are open they're difficult or impossible to close shut. Telling people NOT to do something that clearly benefits them with no downsides to themselves is difficult. You could try publicly shaming them, but recent politicians have shown how to function without shame, so this tactic no longer works in our society.
It's a difficult problem that will only get worse in the future. One that needs addressing, but likely won't be because it benefits no one to do so, and also because it's a chronic or slow moving problem, which people often don't respond well to, if at all.
