i.e. the scientific method

As in, not this: https://youtu.be/RxyQNEVOElU

In more practical terms, yes you absolutely should trust scientists, and it's important to know the difference between an "appeal to authority fallacy" and "deferral to expertise".

https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...

Scientists are not in the business of making recommendations to lay people. There are other professions for that: doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, journalists etc. Scientists are mostly in the business of disproving the conjectures of other scientists.*

* actually grant-writing, but I’m not sure that counts either

Also, I’m pretty sure that the inclusion of “deferring to experts” in the accepted rules of formal logic would be a minority opinion among philosophy professors specializing in that area. “The fallacy guy” may not appreciate the irony there. It’s still a fallacy because it’s not logical in the strict sense of an argument (deduction from premise), regardless of whether it’s a good idea or not. It would only hold if the premise was that the “expert” source was an honest oracle, so without acceptance of that premise by both parties, the argument is erroneous.

I happen to be a biochemist, and I find your view of what a scientist does to be excessively narrow.

We're also not talking about formal logic (I clearly started my comment by saying "in more practical terms", did I not?), we're talking about a distinction between an appropriate and an inappropriate heuristic. I highly recommend you finish reading the article I posted.

It's still a fallacy. As with most fallacies, it exist because it's a good enough rule of thumb to live our lives.

I recommend reading the article. It's the difference between an inappropriate heuristic, and an appropriate heuristic.