> you got it right.. it's a bet

Sure. As you don't have certainty but you have to make decisions.

> Science is not the ultimate source of truth,

Science is our current best approximation of reality. But yes, it's not ultimate and we indeed do know that it's inaccurate. But we don't know better. And that's also important to keep in mind.

> it is data with a risk reward attached that you can use for your own critical thinking

Yes, but there's a trap here. It's OK as long as you base your decisions on your best knowledge (i.e. science). You can say that based on your risk profile (which you can estimate using science) the best decision (bet! :) ) for you is X. That's rational. However, a lot of people interpret similar claims as if it would be rational use what they think is "critical thinking" to override science. And that's a huge difference.

To be more specific. E.g. there is huge difference in saying that I believe that (accept the assumption) mRNA vaccines are safe with a 99999/100000 probability (i.e. cause cause serious side effects at most 1 out of 100 000 times) but I estimate my COVID risk lower, because the way I isolate myself (let's say you do have the data). I don't meet anyone, don't go outside, I'm 25yo, I work out, I don't have a condition, etc.

Vs. if someone says that "yeah, they say it's safe, but I don't think so, because this and that". Because that's not critical thinking. That's actually the lack of self reflection/critique. Even if someone reads up on some literature and they base their opinion on that, that almost certainly will just be cherry picking (it's hard to do better in a field someone knows nothing about).

> But people now are treating as an infallible religion that > you can outsource your critical thinking to...which is scary imo.

I don't see this. I probably see more people who are so afraid of making the wrong decision that they actually end up making the wrong decision :). Again, "critical thinking" sounds good, but a lot of time it's not critical thinking. Some people may feel insecure if they just accept someone else's decision or opinion even if that someone else knows lot better. And it may feel safe to make your own decision (which, almost by definition has to be different). But that's a bad intuition. If you have no better information to base your decision on than your best source (in this case, science) then your end results will just be worse by adding in your thinking (your inferior data sources and inference).

>>then your end results will just be worse by adding in your thinking

Tell that to the people who decided against getting a labotomy after labotomies won the Nobel prize. ;)