Scientismic appeals commonly appear in relation to political agendas. In popular discourse "trusting science" can be better understood as an appeal for conform

Scientismic appeals commonly appear in relation to political agendas. In popular discourse "trusting science" can be better understood as an appeal for conformity of thought. Scientists naturally disagree about a great many things. When people are asked to "trust The Science", the speaker is asking for unquestioning faith in the experts they feel are truthful. Scientism is just another way denigrate dissent as dangerous heresy. The core of the issue revolves around the lack of trust in government and media institutions. It is a poor substitute for reflecting upon how the trust deficit came about and attempting to address those issues. The process would undoubtedly involve addressing past misdeeds, accepting responsibility and attempting to make amends. Understandably, this is not palatable. In lieu of this we are offered more divisive finger pointing and comically inept generalizations of the heathen unbelievers as "flat-earthers". The end result is a doubling down on the trust deficit, digging us deeper with further divisiveness. At a certain point this approach and the institutions advancing it must be recognized as bankrupt.