Trust in scientists is too high when they keep pumping out studies that don't replicate, and don't publish the original data and methods used to reach conclusions.
I wholly trust science that independently replicates and the fact that it's missing from the process means much of what we see is less than wholly trustworthy.
Not all fields of science are created equal. Whether or not studies are replicated or data is available will depend entirely on the field of study.
Certainly, a lot of the social sciences and "soft" sciences have a fair bit of replication/data problems. That said, the biomedical, environmental, geologic, and chemical sciences by and large have really solid data and repeats of that data. The areas of sciences we have a harder time controlling for are those where it'd be unethical to get better data and examples (nutritional science, for example).
There are far too many fields of study to lump all science into the same bucket and call it all untrustworthy.
A bigger problem is that scientific journalism treats every study as being equal. When, in fact, some studies are far better than others and carry a much larger weight of truth.
But FB, and other platforms, treat them as if they are when making their decisions on what to censor. FB even trusts so called "independent fact checkers," who don't even claim to be scientists and write mostly on political topics, to act as arbiters of truth.
> A bigger problem is that scientific journalism treats every study as being equal.
And it's these journalists that FB is relying on for its determination of fact, not the actual scientists.
I wholly trust science that independently replicates and the fact that it's missing from the process means much of what we see is less than wholly trustworthy.