I think there's an issue that sometimes the dynamics of scientific progress that Kuhn described are misinterpreted as basically meaning that, oh look, scientist

I think there's an issue that sometimes the dynamics of scientific progress that Kuhn described are misinterpreted as basically meaning that, oh look, scientists are just human like the rest of us, so scientific thought isn't somehow privileged over any other point of view. However, Kuhn's dynamics are ultimately a consequence of reasoning in the face of uncertainty. Simply applying logic to experimental results is not what scientists actually do, instead, they have to develop a sort of taste in reasoning, in order to apply appropriate prior beliefs in the Bayesian sense and in order to apply appropriate weights when new evidence becomes available. This can lead to scientific thinking getting stuck in local optima of sorts, until evidence comes along (at the right time, potentially) that shakes people up sufficiently to force a new approach. Still, that isn't equally true for every subfield; some subfields will have proven their worth to greater degrees than others by consistently making good predictions or consistently offering elegant explanations for phenomena. I guess the difficulty in science communication comes to a large degree from the difficulty in communicating that last point, particularly since scientists themselves may disagree about how mature a given subfield really is.