eph221
Some voters put alot of faith in science as objective fact. It's definitely truthier, whether it can be considered objective fact, that's another matter. We need to start somewhere. Regardless, just like in a court room, there's not a perfect system.
Actually, many of those people's beliefs are based on blatantly fallacious reasoning - i.e. scientists (or other authorities) say it so it must be true.
To get around the fallacy one has to look at
why the (real or supposed) authorities say or believe what they do. Which of course either requires a bit of effort (and often quite a bit - assuming one is even capable of understanding at all) or else a willingness to accept that one has no clue what the facts really are and thus isn't qualified to hold a relevant opinion on the matter at hand.
Unfortunately some scientists, being human, allow this fallacy to go unchallenged even though they almost certainly must know better.
The point being that some of us believe the world might be a better place if people didn't get into arguments when they don't actually have any significant knowledge of what they're talking about and instead let the people who actually
know things have the discussion.
There's nothing wrong with admitting that one doesn't know enough about something to hold an opinion on it - it's actually the first step in being able to learn anything.