Many people these days cannot understand how science could go astray. They have a blind, childlike faith in science. They believe it is somehow inerrant, that there are scientific "methods" that are self correcting. They abound on social media where they advise abolishing all religion because they consider religion the cause of all the problems in the world.
By way of explanation, consider the people who are religious and believe the Bible to be "true" or "written," however indirectly, by an infallible being. Setting aside whether the Bible is somehow "perfect," it can be obvious that the people who read it are not perfect. The people who read the Bible can disagree sharply on what it means or how or if it should be applied to actual current situations.
In a somewhat similar manner science can establish particular truth in particular conditions, but not all people, however much they admire science, follow the scientific procedures properly. "Science" in the ideal might be nearly perfect, but the people who read and admire it are definitely not even close to perfect.
So this article concerns "notions" of science. There are people who do not believe in angels who nevertheless have an attitude that science is somehow watched over by angels and should be treated as such. Science is not watched over by angels. There is such a thing as bad science.
Many people think even a blind faith in science is better than a blind faith in religion. It does appear the Center for Disease Control, or quite many present and recent members of that organization, are disturbed that there is a dangerous level of distrust in science. However the problem is not blind faith in religion, the problem is blind faith in whatever, including science. Blind faith in science can be every bit as bad or even worse than blind faith in religion.
People with actual skill in interpreting numbers do not believe covid was as severe a problem as it was presented by various "professionals" on television. There was a man on television, apparently not a medical professional, in tears, begging people to "believe" in the science. There were quite many people, also not medical professionals, obviously determined that something they considered "science" must be obeyed. Because of them and even a few medical "professionals" the response to covid was entirely inordinate.
Remember there are two different sources of opposition to current notions of science. The usual one, the worse one, is the people who oppose all social pressure on their behavior. That can be a strange mix of people. Many people who consider themselves "Christians" dislike any rules whatever. Some Democrats develop a similar distaste for all rules although technically they should only be concerned about people in power misusing that power in the name of the rules.
The Trump base is itself a strange mix of people. It is mostly people who dislike any social pressure whatever on their behavior, but ironically includes people who want to "fight" the evils in the world as they see them. According to them it is evil when others do it, but not evil when they do it. Evidence suggests that for much of his life Donald Trump was a lecherous, criminal, idiot. How then does a lecherous, criminal, idiot get elected to president of the United States? It is possible that he "got away" much of the time because of his youthful good looks and father's money. Reasons he won election probably include that people who don't like any rules did like him. Another reason is probably that the political "right" was so desperate to define itself it chose a military hairstyle as its foundation principle. The likely main reason Trump won in 2024 is that too many "Democrats" tried to run on bad science.
People tell so many filthy lies on each other lately it can be difficult to say how many actual Democrats believed the bad science, but there is a kind of a list.
The terrible mismanagement of the data and the news in the "pandemic" gave those people who do not like any rules whatever the impression they had "won" something. Although they can indeed be dangerous, it is not clear which is the greater danger. It can be hoped that if it becomes evident vaccines are more useful, then more people will use them.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a mental illness. Then that organization tinkered with its definitions making it unclear that homosexuals were mental ill. If doctors today could give people born to one gender the parts of the other gender that actually work then it could be different. Since doctors still cannot, homosexuality is a failure to accept that reality, and others should not be expected to play along with such mental illness.
Even so, there is no need to monitor public restrooms. The latch on the restroom stall door has been purposefully designed to be so simple anyone can use it and see whether it is latched or not. That affords so much privacy that civil engineers had to consider safety. What if someone in such private quarters has a medical emergency? So there is an opening of about a foot at the bottom of the stall wall through which a medical emergency might be noticed. If no one available can fit through that opening to unlatch the stall, there is another opening at the top. It might be easier to access that opening using a chair or small step ladder.
Having utterly lost that argument some people complained that "transgenders" were using locker rooms that were designated for women only. At first, and apparently still, their argument was that no men should compete in sports with women ever. Only after it was noted that men could compete with women in several sports provided the men used separate locker rooms did the complaint turn to locker rooms. To solve that problem, first it is important to understand that the public does not need access to locker rooms. The school, the athletic association, a coach, or other official should decide who may enter the locker rooms and when. If there is a person born a male then that person should have a locker in the locker room designated for males. Then "he" would have to change in the locker room for males where "his" locker is located. If the local authority is not doing that then those people just need a new "coach," not a change in any laws.
Ensuring order in society is important, but it is also important that the people responsible for ensuring order have a clear idea what they are doing. The problems the Trump base is having are likely the result of the Trump base being "stupid" (there is no polite way to sound that alarm).
It has been hoped that forcing people to buy electric vehicles will also force them to make charging stations that use renewable energy. That is not working so well. Quite most charging stations in quite most of the country get electricity from burning still abundant fossil fuels. If electric vehicles get their electricity that way, and most of them still do, it is actually burning more fossil fuels than internal combustion engines do.
A rather frequent failure people have in "science" is expecting statistical analysis to have the same strength in argument that science "ceteris paribus" has. Depending on numerous factors statistical analysis can have more or less strength in argument, but it never has the strength in argument actual science can have, except in unusual circumstances. There is no way to measure the temperature of the entire 2.3 billion cubic miles (That is just the first 12 miles up.) of the atmosphere of the Earth by science. It requires statistical analysis instead. With statistical analysis there will be a margin of error. In the case of this measurement the margin of error will be enormous and certainly more than 2°C.
Most of the water in the atmosphere is put there in the lower latitudes far from polar regions. Polar ice can be removed by sublimation or the action of sunlight on the ice. Therefore it is not clear that shrinking polar ice necessarily means the planet is warming. It could be cooling, putting less water in the atmosphere, and not replacing the ice in polar regions that sublimated.
Hurricanes are not caused by warm air. Hurricanes are caused by a layer of cold air over a layer of warm air. The intensity of the hurricane is mostly caused by the difference in temperature of the air layers.
The country might indeed be less safe now that science no longer has the standing it once had. Which political party might be be more safe is difficult to say though. Part of the problem is probably the internet. People on the internet who have no skill at winning arguments try to decide matters of religion and science by majority rule and internet domination. Science does not recognize majority rule in solving problems in science. There is instead a "scientific" method for that. Religion, except some peculiar offshoots of "Christianity," does not generally recognize majority rule. Rather religion depends on revelation and imperfect people doing their best to read scriptures in order to advise government.
Most people including the Trump base still have considerable blind, childlike faith in science. It is not likely to save the country. It was remarkable watching congressional hearings where so many members of congress seemed to believe they knew anything about science and more than Kennedy. Members of congress with any knowledge of science? How absurd is that? Read the list above again. Bad science is not likely to fix bad religion, and bad religion is not likely to fix bad science. Until the country gets both good science and good religion it will continue its downward spiral.
If the Democrats try to run too much on bad science again they will only elect more lecherous, criminal, idiots and those might not be Democrats.