They said "distrust in science", not "anti-science". Those are two entirely different things.
Speaking as an American, most Americans see "science" in the news media and assume it's 1.) accurate and 2.) actual science, and then it turns out to be fringe, or the media got it entirely wrong and it gets stored in these people's personal caches of "How scientists are always wrong." Eg. the American debate on climate change.
I'm thinking not "flat earth" here, but people who are legitimately exhausted from the scientific media telling them eggs are good for you one month, and then that they're bad for you the month, and repeating that for literally decades.
It is a rational conclusion to devalue science, or at least devalue science journalism, at that point. Science journalism should not be so free in giving people rational reasons to discount them.
Comments
They said "distrust in science", not "anti-science". Those are two entirely different things.
Speaking as an American, most Americans see "science" in the news media and assume it's 1.) accurate and 2.) actual science, and then it turns out to be fringe, or the media got it entirely wrong and it gets stored in these people's personal caches of "How scientists are always wrong." Eg. the American debate on climate change.
I endorse this reply.
I'm thinking not "flat earth" here, but people who are legitimately exhausted from the scientific media telling them eggs are good for you one month, and then that they're bad for you the month, and repeating that for literally decades.
It is a rational conclusion to devalue science, or at least devalue science journalism, at that point. Science journalism should not be so free in giving people rational reasons to discount them.