Humans aren't great as being logical. A scientist giving an expertly sourced claim with plenty of disclaimers is going to have their idea given less importance

Humans aren't great as being logical. A scientist giving an expertly sourced claim with plenty of disclaimers is going to have their idea given less importance than a charismatic speaker using conviction and force but having no evidence and being entirely wrong. Humans like confidence more than facts. I'm not sure what the fix is, because a scientist is generally speaking with the level of confidence that matches their knowledge and understanding. Do we ask them to be more confident even if it goes past what their knowledge and understanding can justify? And thanks to the Gell-Mann Effect, even if you invest time and resources into convincing the population the expert is right in one case, they still default back to believe the confident and charismatic speaker who doesn't know what they are talking about (or even worse, is being purposefully misleading).