>The problem isn't really people being anti-science or pro-science. The problem is science being done poorly, whether by scientists in the credentialed sense, o

>The problem isn't really people being anti-science or pro-science. The problem is science being done poorly, whether by scientists in the credentialed sense, or amateurs. That's a very simplistic take on it. Bad science is a necessary part of the process and dealt with accordingly by the scientific method. The problem is that science that is bad or incomplete is being reported as fact or truth, or arguably even worse, as entertainment in order to gain an audience. This is what actually eroded the trust in science, as people kept repeating things that reinforced and further misshaped their biases. Human nature tends to distrust stuff we don't understand. Hence, our trust in science, which in many fields is often beyond the understanding of laymen, have to have constant reinforcement. However, the goal of media, and especially social media is to increase eyeballs for their content, and the truth sells a lot less well than sensationalised content pandering to the audience. Simply put, there is not much profit in reporting science truthfully, and every incentive to sensationalise it.