To be fair, you shouldn't. Science isn't doctrinal. It's not something you or anyone should take on faith. Skepticism exists at the very core of science, the basic posture in any scientific endeavor is "I don't know". If you can't read a scientific paper because you don't understand it, or because it's behind a paywall, then your conclusion shouldn't be one of "well I guess it's correct because important people say so", but "I don't know."

Some people don't understand skepticism, and get muddled up in Occam's razor or something (which is just modus tollens of the similarly dubious "where there's smoke, there's fire"; a good starting point perhaps, but nothing to draw conclusions from), and they think that if they can't prove something, it must be false. That's not correct either. If you there is no proof, it could be either way.

We're in this bizarre zeitgeist where everyone is telling you to listen to science because it's all true, but for the love of god, don't engage in any sort of scientific inquiry yourself, who knows what heterodoxy you might arrive at.

The coffee machine at work has a bunch of advertisement stuck on it, how the coffee has been fine-tuned by experts and tested by scientists to be the optimal coffee experience. Like what the heck, am I not a better judge of whether I like the coffee than a bunch of scientists?