Thank you—this is exactly the point. People confuse their own values with science, and ‘follow the science’ rhetoric only makes it worse. Science might say, ‘If you take action X, thing A increases,’ but deciding whether to take action X involves weighing A against everything else we care about—values, costs, benefits, and human experience.

COVID was a perfect example of this. Policies like isolating grandma in a nursing home or pulling kids out of school for two years were framed as ‘following the science,’ but they ignored entire fields of science and vast parts of the human experience. Loneliness has measurable health consequences—science shows it can kill. So do we isolate grandma to protect her from COVID, or risk her dying of loneliness? Similarly, the science of childhood education tells us that pulling kids from school harms them for life. These are real trade-offs, rooted in human values, not just science. And to be frank, that entire discussion was shut down completely. The entire decision making process was incredibly one-sided and myopic.

The same applies to dams. Decisions about whether to keep or remove them aren’t just ‘science versus activism.’ Both sides are informed by science, but they’re also driven by emotion, lived experience, and the values people hold. Science doesn’t tell us what to do—it gives us information about potential outcomes. What we choose depends on how we weigh those outcomes and whose priorities matter most. When rhetoric like ‘keep the dam = science, remove the dam = activism’ takes over, it oversimplifies these deeply human decisions and turns them into unnecessary battles. At the end of the day, it’s not ‘us vs. them’—it’s all of us trying to navigate complex trade-offs in a way that reflects the full spectrum of what matters to humans.

Yes, but it's not like science is something independent. The biases of scientists who live in a society are bound to be present. Also whoever funds science studies (government, corporations, military) gets to determine what is considered.

You're letting your prejudices jump you to wrong conclusions about what's going on.

While it might be politically pleasurable to imagine a bunch of ivory tower idiots, the real reason driving dam removal isn't salmon, it's preventing catastrophic dam collapse. That's why there's state and federal funding for a lot of dam removal.

The dams being removed are old, obsolete, and end of life. They were usually put in place before we had a power grid.

Leaving them in place isn't an option, they will eventually fail. Spending money to replace or repair a dam that doesn't do anything is a waste.

Removing them also has a ton of environmental benefits, and improves the area for current and future residents.

It really is a win-win situation in that everyone benefits: conservation groups, tribal groups, fishing and hunting groups and taxpayers.

It is striking to me that the only locals you seem to care about in your set of responses here are the white locals? Your hypothetical contrast between "remote activists" who want to remove the dams and the "local stalwarts" totally ignores the people who have been most impacted and lost the most through the existence of these dams.

The tribes that relied on the salmon in the klamath watershed lost their jobs, subsistence food, and cultural heritage for nearly a hundred years, and this factors precisely nil in your analysis.