When politicians insist that they're "following the science"as if it reveals impersonal, unquestionable truths"they promote a dangerous illusion. Evolutionary psychologist Pascal Boyer warns that, like traditional diviners reading horoscopes or entrails, leaders invoke "the science" to offload responsibility, avoid conflict, and cloak decisions in inevitability. But science is no oracle: it is a human process of debate, judgement and dissent. This came to a head during the years of the virus, a period during which governments in many nations tried to enforce all manner of rules and regulations, presenting them as directly derived from "the science." It is now clear that some of these measures were pointless, damaging or counter-productive"see, for example, scientific reviews on masks or lockdowns. That, of course, did little to bolster the public's trust in experts and "the science." The science used by politicians and administrations in this case only provided information about one aspect of the required decision-making. It did not quantify the social and economic costs of closing down places where people huddle together, like schools, small stores, theaters and restaurants, or of suspending all manner of "non-essential" economic activity.