Even scientists have been increasingly admitting that confirmation bias is strong. Another problem is funding. If all research was funded by non-profit public interest groups, there might be more trust, but when you're talking about GMO research, for example, a lot of it is done by industry for industry. I'm not saying that all GMOs are bad, but it's also impossible to make a blanket statement that all GMOs are good. Obviously that's not the case.

A GMO could be created to be extremely dangerous, just like a prescription medicine could and has been created which is extremely dangerous. The problem is that we're asked to trust people whose immediate interests do not always align with ours. We've seen prescriptions forced through with inadequate testing, so there's no reason to believe that every GMO is going to be adequately tested. The current atmosphere of hostility seems to be helping that testing happen.

The base problem is that we have a society of people whose interests are aligned against each other and a system meant to encourage that kind of competition.

> The base problem is that we have a society of people whose interests are aligned against each other and a system meant to encourage that kind of competition.

This. This might be one of the roots of the lack of trust. And given that people get abused by others all the time, it's really hard for me to blame people mistrusting research done by companies - especially if you don't have even basic understanding of the scientific issues involved, which most people don't have - partially thanks to broken education system, and partially because well, why should they? Not everyone will love science, those who don't should be able to just trust those of us who do. But now they can't.

I suspect if you actually speak to a scientist, you'll find they really do not ignore the complexity of their subjects. However, the public starts at such a base level, that it's impossible to even engage at the limits of their research. And the honesty of the scientists with regards to their understood complexity often times does them more harm then good. Their carefully chosen, complex-laden words are glossed over in news headlines that extinguish the nuance.

Ask a genetic researcher if "GMOs can harm humans" and the answer will likely be, "Probably not". But this actually means - "I can conceive of nothing but the most fantastic route for that to happen. And even if it did it would have to happen by a route currently unknown or at the edge of our entire field." When in reality the public clings to really strange notions that truly are scientifically incorrect.

You can make the argument that being correct for the wrong reasons has its advantages, but in real life no single action ever taken is without risk. It is precisely the scientist who has dedicated her career to her work that understands (and even thrives in) its complexity.

Well, of course I reduced those groups to their most vocal parts. But we do have overwhelming evidence that vaccines don't kill you, GMOs don't kill you, nuclear power is safe and environmentally friendly. Mind you, those don't even require detailed scientific research - just a little common sense, back-of-the-napkin math and realizing that if what those anti-XXX groups are saying were true, we'd see half of the western world being autistic, dying from cancer and giving birth to two-headed mutants.

I agree that arrogance of some scientists is a part of the problem (I'd say caused by communication problems - scientists and non-scientists are often so far apart in their understanding of various subjects that it's very hard for those two groups to communicate with each other).

Also, people saying about "limits of research" are often doing this to support their refusal to accept conclusions. If you can't find any rational argument against a thesis, you can always say that the whole process is wrong and then continue to believe whatever you want to believe. "But there's always a chance, right?".

> Also people like you that believe that everything that has gone trough a scientific study must be true, science can also get it wrong sometimes, don't stop thinking and questioning.

I can't speak for TeMPOraL, but I've never heard anyone claim that science is infallible--and it's certainly not implied by their comment.

Science believers simply recognize that scientifically-vetted ideas are _the most likely to be true_.

Sometimes science is wrong. Often. Maybe even usually. Science is very clearly the most reliable truth-finding mechanism we have.

The options aren't sometimes-wrong science v. omniscience. It's sometimes-wrong science v. more-often-wrong everything else.

Characterizing belief in scientific findings as absolute, undoubting faith is completely inaccurate.