This article is full of it. In particular, the paragraph I’m going to pick on is as follows:
“To truly connect with people, I think scientists and their supporters need to paint a positive vision of the future, where science re-affirms its moral authority, articulates how it will help us, and advances a noble cause.”
No — scientists need to paint a picture that fits the facts, not fit the facts to the picture they want to paint. That is what this paragraph is saying — manipulate the facts to fit a picture. There is no moral authority associated with science — it is a process: hypothesis, plan, collect evidence, analysis and repeat until you are satisfied there is no more or have to conclude the hypothesis is false.
Science is hard — it is not nice — you don’t get a trophy for participation. You need to research and continue to learn and to expand and to be creative — but the data takes you where you go — you do not take the data where you want to go. That is the whole myth behind a lot of science today. Let’s take climate change — why are the agencies changing the data collected again — oh yes to make the data fit a story.
Science is soft — there are no definite until it is shown over many centuries, aka life times. Until then it is soft and it is not definitive.
Ok it is contradictory — that is why you follow the process and let the data take you there — not you take the data there.