[helen___keller]

> The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended 8:30 AM as a minimum start time, that's not the same as "the science" definitely saying one thing or another.

This is a nitpick at best. From outside a given field, one generally has no option but to pick one or some sources as authoritative and refer to them (or to declare no source is authoritative).

In other words, if I say “the science says XYZ” this is shorthand for “my preferred authoritative sources of information on the relevant field assert XYZ”

Can this be incorrect? Yes. Is this often used as a bludgeon? Yes, and reasonably so: without piercing the research veil, what discussion could exist besides disagreeing on a sources’ authority?

If I say “the science says kids shouldn’t wake before 8 am”, and you respond with some neuroscience argument that childrens brain can adapt to waking up before 8 am, you are essentially making an off topic argument: I am referencing an authoritative position, not arguing why that position is correct. In that sense, yes, I am applying a bludgeon; and I right well should, because I can’t have a meaningful engagement with your scientific position anyways.

I see your sentiment often and even though I agree that usage of “the science says” is a poor description of how science works, nonetheless language is an evolving construct and “the science says ___” is a mainstream construct in English language dialogue at this point

There’s nothing wrong with appealing to authority. Often times it’s the best we can do. Sometimes authority is not sufficiently convincing and in such situations it’s fine to point out that whatever “the science” refers to needs more evidence supporting their claims

[thegrim33]

It's appealing to authority without having to even do the absolute bare minimum of mentioning what the authority you're appealing to is. Is the authority some person's blogpost? Is the authority the FDA? Who knows. "The science" is the authority, whoever that might be, which doesn't mean squat.

[helen___keller]

Yes it’s laziness. It’s essentially equivalent to hearsay without proper citations. However it opens the door to less lazy conversation for those who care to ask for sources, and most importantly it sets the baseline expectations that those sources will be grounded by science and not like, my reiki teacher told me kids should wake up after 8 am

There’s something to be said by beginning a conversation with a shared understanding of what is considered a reasonable ground truth.