I think what the GP is getting at is that science is a process, not a priesthood. Being part of the social institution of science doesn't automatically make one

I think what the GP is getting at is that science is a process, not a priesthood. Being part of the social institution of science doesn't automatically make one's opinions more valid, what makes their opinions more valid than the layperson is the correct application of the scientific method. Believing someone "because they're a scientist therefore they are right" like most of the general public is still a faith-based approach, believing someone because their paper managed to convince most of their peers they were onto something and produced reproducable results is a scientific approach. The GP is essentially claiming that many people are believing the right things for the wrong reason if I've interpreted the point correctly. The problem is in this brave new post-pandemic world we've elevated scientists to the social position of prophets without the general public really being aware of how the scientific method is supposed to work or the limitations of things like statistical modelling. Science is a mere process that society has foisted the role of a priesthood onto, and I really think that this is asking for trouble because for the most part people have trouble differentiating science from pseudoscience. This rising tide has lifted all boats, including the quacks and charlatans of the world.