What all this means (combined with other research, which the article reviews), is that trust in science itself, while a good thing overall, makes people more susceptible to pseudoscientific manipulation. All you have to do is make a claim seem sciency by quoting an alleged expert or citing a study (regardless of the quality, relevance, or representativeness of that study), and those with trust in science will see that as a cue to trust the claims being made.
Overall I think this means that when dealing with noncontroversial claims by legitimate scientists, trust in science is a good thing. It makes people more likely to accept claims and conclusions which are likely to be true because they are backed by legitimate science. But when dealing with pseudoscience, science denial, or claims that are controversial because they have political or ideological implications, this trust in science can be exploited to increase belief in and dissemination of false claims.Steven Novella, “Trust in Science May Lead to Pseudoscience” at Neurologica Blog
But wait! That’s the finger on the scale! Suppose, listening to the evidence around COVID-19, I reasonably believed that it originated in a lab in Wuhan (China) which was doing experiments that the local people were not qualified to be doing?
Such a conclusion is inconvenient to current science bureaucrats but entirely reasonable otherwise. So then, they are “pro-science” and the rest of us are “anti-science”?
Well, “science” won’t be the winner.
Shouldn’t someone do a paper on the neuroses of “science” supporters like Novella?
You may also wish to read: Why should we believe atheists on the subject of God? Logic and evidence both point to the existence of God, whatever atheists may think. Most atheist arguments involve quibbles with a vast body of logic, evidence, and experience. Listen, sure — but check it out.