I agree that that particular point is one of the biggest problems when it comes to translating scientific understanding to public policy. Can there be "settled

I agree that that particular point is one of the biggest problems when it comes to translating scientific understanding to public policy. Can there be "settled science"? What is considered an acceptable level of skepticism? Governing society is largely based on rough estimates of ROI and optimizing for certain value systems based on minimal firm data at best. Often under time pressure. The problem is that it's easy to generate bullshit skepticism to lock up the process (to benefit the status quo) whereas it takes lots of effort to scientifically disprove and debunk the bullshit. We generally use appeal to authority as a shortcut to overcome this effort asymmetry. The thing we need to be clear about is when/how that is a valid tool for public policy, but not science itself.