I don't think the scientific method is actually that easy for most people to grasp. For a layperson, simply talking about experiments and repeatability doesn't

I don't think the scientific method is actually that easy for most people to grasp. For a layperson, simply talking about experiments and repeatability doesn't really convey the reality of how science works. The way I describe the scientific method to regular people is its purpose: It is simply the growing and improving collection of methods we have found for separating fact, from fiction, illusion, bias, wishful thinking, tradition, coincidence, and every other form of misconception or non-predictive source. It is the only system of knowledge, that is based on relentlessly weeding out any false or unproven conjectures we have about reality. This conforms to actual practice: actual scientific activity includes falsifiable predictions, experiments, reviews and repeatability, but also math (a biggie obviously), statistics, revealed conflicts of interest, regular meta-studies of active areas, tests for data bias, simulations for exploring implications, discussion groups vetting and encouraging each other's ideas, cataloging of fruitful concepts for guiding inquiry such as symmetry, ... and on and on and on. And as new tests, methods or ideas are found useful, the scientific method accumulates them. What all these activities have in common is they decrease the chance that something incorrect will be accepted. And given all that testing and vetting and care, science holds itself to a higher standard than any other search for knowledge except pure math. And given that science is an inherently decentralized activity, carried out with experts in numerous overlapping fields, organizations, and areas of research, and the fact that nature itself contains no contradictions, it is very difficult for errors to stick around unnoticed in any area attracting much attention. Another practical part of science many people don't get, is most scientists are actively working at the intersection of the known and unknown, so are very aware of sciences limitations, and also the destructive danger to their own progress and credibility if they unwittingly or strategically choose to accept false premises, for political, economic or other reasons. Not that bad science is never done, but it is very risky for the scientists own credibility and ability to make any meaningful discovery. Coalitions to intentionally push false narratives would know they were severely handicapping themselves from further discovery, and sabotaging their own relevance to downstream scientific discovery and technological applications. Those of us familiar with science tend to take all this context for how and why science works for granted.