I don't think they're dissatisfied with truth of any kind. They're dissatisfied with their own position and status relative to that truth. There's little glory

I don't think they're dissatisfied with truth of any kind. They're dissatisfied with their own position and status relative to that truth. There's little glory to be had from saying "yes, the experts know what they're doing and they got this right" even when those experts are highly regarded. But if you get in early to become your local peer group's representative for an unconventional or controversial position, and it turns out to have merit, there's a huge social-status payoff. Everyone's playing the thought-leader lottery. They keep bleeding little bits of credibility, over and over again, in the hopes of some day hitting the jackpot that will make all those losses seem tiny. Getting in first is an essential part of the game, so people range far and wide to find what they think is the perfect balance of possibility and payoff. The 40-year project to undermine expertise and specialization of all kind magnifies this effect in some, and brings it out in others for whom it had only been latent, but it's not the real driver. The real driver is that people feel slighted and ignored, operating in a supposedly egalitarian public sphere and seeing other "ordinary" people gain extraordinary status, but unable to do so themselves without taking risks.