I don't think we should. The problem isn't science, the problem is that fake "sciencey" presentations of opinions that are known to be wrong have been used to

I don't think we should. The problem isn't science, the problem is that fake "sciencey" presentations of opinions that are known to be wrong have been used to devalue real science. Climate change is the perfect example. The fossil barons knew that a move to renewables would destroy their political influence and financial power, so they literally ran a decades-long campaign to discredit the established science and individual scientists. There is far more need to educate the public about toxic PR technologies, media manipulations, FUD, cut-out think tanks all funded by the same sources and pushing the same disinformation, social media bot farms, and all the other industrial fake news techniques than there is about basic science. It doesn't matter if individuals don't understand what a mass spectrometer does. But it's hugely damaging to democracy if individuals believe they have an informed personal opinion when in fact they've been manipulated into a distorted and provably unrealistic world view without even being aware of it.