Your relative could be my sister. I happened to mention the adverse effects database and she screamed at me to stop spouting right wing propaganda because she ‘follows the science’. I think that ‘follow the science’ was a very clever marketing idea because if you disagree with what they consider ‘The Science’, you’re automatically a rube with no intelligence because you’re not “Following The Science”. Clever strategy.
Reminds me years ago that the southern end of Kauai decided to market itself as ‘The Sunny Side of the Island’. Well, what did that leave to the other sides of the island: you guessed it, ‘non-sunny’. Statistically no difference in rainfall between north and south sides of the island, but the south had cleverly given itself the moniker ‘sunny side’. Many many travel clients told me they wanted to stay on the ‘sunny side’, not the rainy side of the island.
So, claiming to ‘follow the science’ is analogous. No relation to truth, but it’s clever.
yep- the two could be twins i guess- she gets to spout whatever she wants- whether it be anti-conservative nonsense, or anti-religion nonsense, and nooen can refute anything she says- she gets angry and says “I don’t talk politics or religion’ (but of course she herself just got through maligning both- but don’t dare try to point that out)
Yup- the ‘anti-science’ accusation is meant ot shut the opposition up for sure- they think it sets them up on a higher intellectual level- but when you show them facts that prove that their views are actually the views that are anti0-science, they go ballistic