Cafeteria Scientism

Follow the science, insist our liberal friends. I might be more amenable to that if they were. 

What grates me as much as anything else is the rank hypocrisy involved. We're expected to follow the science when they like it on things such as COVID protocols and climate change. Yet in areas where the science is far greater settled, such as gender identity and human sexual relations, they are noticeably reluctant to follow its conclusions. This is really nothing more than a cafeteria approach to science, accepting it when you like what it teaches (or might be trying to teach, arguably) and ignoring it when you don't.

That simply won't wash. If you expect me to follow the science no matter where it leads or what it says then I have the right to expect that of you. Otherwise, you have virtually a zero chance of convincing me you're right about the questions you deem critical. It is nothing less than selfishly polemical to insist on devotion to a principle which you yourself will not respect.

If I must follow the science on climate issues and COVID then you certainly must follow it on the questions of gender identity and human sexuality. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty. On that ground alone I see no obligation to listen to your arguments on what amount to pop scientism rather than honest fact.