I think there is another element. I admit, that as a scientific researcher, I am exhausted with 'science' in the mainstream. We are bombarded by rubbish 'scien

I think there is another element. I admit, that as a scientific researcher, I am exhausted with 'science' in the mainstream. We are bombarded by rubbish 'science' reporting, which when criticized, hides behind the banner of science. God forbid any of the articles in the Science section of most major newspapers actually scale the reporting to the actual significance of the finding/article. Often it is usually cheap journalism that goes with a crazy headline (eg. AIDS cure found in mice) reporting on some preliminary study that is suggestive at best, and often a PR stunt for a researcher/lab (supported and indeed recommended by the named institution). There are also a ton of opinion pieces and blogs that use data analysis or 'science' to push an agenda. That's great when it adheres to the scientific method, but often they don't or the argument it is justifying isn't in the field of science. Just because you crunched numbers does not mean you are doing science. I have very well educated friends who assume that if an opinion is backed by statistics, then you are backed by facts, and conflate science with fact (as per @api's point 3). Critical thinking doesn't come into play. A lot of them do well in policy jobs! We need more education on the scientific method, better criticism of poor science reporting in the media, and a desperate need for scientists to regain the public's trust. I believe this last step is very hard currently. The education bubble is just growing and growing and academia is eaten up be the tertiary education industry and a destructive motivator model (publish or perish).