"science" is the enactment of the scientific method, which involves hypotheses and Ockham's Razor. > "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science The

"science" is the enactment of the scientific method, which involves hypotheses and Ockham's Razor. > "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science There is no sense in which this is true. Have you ever gone to a doctor for a second opinion? Peer review itself is based on "questioning the sources" of an article. In my example, the questioning is extended to whole fields of study, or groups of scientists. And my real world example, Monsanto, is exactly why such larger categories of sources should be questioned. > There is a large difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. No, there isn't. The only difference is in the amount of information available. Many people found the US surveilance conspiracy compelling, at a level of information it sounds like you would have disparaged. That makes them perceptive, not anti-scientific. TLDR: mistrust is often well-placed, and those who believe the scientific community is above question are naive.