Untimely thoughts on science and knowledge

A constant refrain of politicians during the contemporary crisis has been that they have been that they have been 'following the science'. However, there is no one science to follow. 'Science' comprises many disciplines, all of them with different perspectives. This applies to medical science, and to the perspectives of medicine on the current crisis. Science, or any other branch of knowledge, is not a textbook to which one can turn for ready answers. It is a method, not a corpus of eternal truth. Although the rather belated rediscovery of expertise is welcome, experts in medicine or any other discipline are not shields behind which politicians can hide. Politics is of necessity the constant negotiation of uncertainty, and the navigation of risks. Science cannot offer any element of certainty ; it only offers different perspectives on uncertainty. To the extent that politicians pretend otherwise, they are being extremely disingenuous not only about science (and the nature of knowledge itself) but also about politics. If politicians had decided to consult the history of infectious disease (say, the influenza pandemic of 1918) and had said that they would 'follow the history', that would be self-evidently absurd, because there is no one historical narrative about anything. Why do politicians not think that it is self-evidently ridiculous to assert that they are 'following the science' ?