>> Additionally, “Science” as used here goes beyond the descriptive by implying an ethical obligation to act in a certain way.
It does not. The author is projecting.
We go through this over and over again.
"Don't talk to me about systemic racism, because I don't want to do anything about it and I don't want to think about that or feel bad!"
This was pretty much a linguistic quibble that the author read way too much into.
Obviously ~~science~~ scientists have their problems. But these issues can be discussed openly and honestly which leads to change. A single good paper can refute years of work. It is quite the opposite of religion, even if imperfect.
This article starts off with such a dubious "fact" that I was able to stop reading right away. Thanks for saving me precious minutes!
If that is the key idea I remain unconvinced: science may not be as objective as we might hope, but politics is the epitome of subjective.
Mainstream medicine sometimes gets things wrong and sometimes is greedy and corrupt, but generally does try to get things right and has checks and procedures in place toward that end.
Alternative medicine almost always gets things wrong, generally doesn't even attempt to validate whether its treatments work, and is absolutely loaded with quacks and grifters.
There is a TON of this in today's discourse. "I'm dissatisfied and let down by the establishment, so I am going to run over here and embrace this vapid sensational populist garbage..."
I agree that the establishment is pretty broken in lots of ways, but to replace it you have to suggest something better. It has to be an actual improvement. Most of the "alternatives" I see put forward are substantially worse than the establishment they are seeking to replace.