The problem is not as bad as some people think, but it definitely is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
One key to understanding the problem today is understanding the problem for some decades before this pandemic.
Long before this website began in 2010 and before some of its predecessors on earlier internet and bulletin board platforms it was noted that much passing as "science" is not really scientific at all. At the same time it was noted that much passing as "religion" is inconsistent with scholarly notions of religion. In fact the primary feature of the Mission Statement for this site says, as it has from the beginning, Science, poetry, politics and religion have become muddled elsewhere. Much calling itself science is not. Much calling itself religion is not. It goes on to say that it is the mission here to clear up such confusion.
Even with the widespread concern for the quality of public education it turns out that far more people are fond of science than capable of it, especially outside the classroom. When people who are not skilled at any science try to formulate arguments in defense of science they usually fail. They use what they consider to be convincing "data" but they never have been, or they no longer are, familiar with the proper techniques for measuring, gathering, and interpreting data.
Notable examples of that include some of the arguments that the climate is changing. Especially on the internet can be found articles that claim the temperature of the atmosphere of the Earth on the whole has been measured and has changed (by less than two degrees over the time measurements have been taken). The failure there is that even if "thousands" of metering stations are employed, the sample size is still far too small to get a precise measure of the temperature of roughly seven billion cubic miles of atmosphere. Using satellites with infrared meters to estimate the average temperature of large sections of the atmosphere is plagued by the problem of various and uncertain levels atmospheric dust and moisture and various temperatures at various heights.
If there is a better reason for alarm about climate change from more professional scientists then that should used instead. Absurd claims of precision only serve to make many people doubt "science." For example data about the lack of sustainability of present consumption levels of "nonrenewable" energy is supported by more relevant data assessment techniques. So the arguments should be about "finite fuels" or "nonrenewable energy" rather than "climate change." Only the terminology for which there is readily available good evidence should be used.
Another absurd argument for climate change readily found especially on the internet is that the level of the ocean has risen an eighth inch per year. Again, that sort of precision is not justified by the number of samples compared to the length and irregularity of the whole of all coastlines, especially with the effects of winds and tides.
Of course crude estimates of the temperature of the entire atmosphere of the Earth or the eustatic level of the ocean might one day indicate any number of problems, but with the minuscule changes so far that is not sensible and gives "science" a bad name. A violation of statistical standards is obvious when reporting does not include the "spread" of the distribution curve. Because it is impossible to measure the temperature of the entire atmosphere it is absolutely necessary to estimate it using statistical analysis techniques. Those will have a distribution curve. A distribution curve has two very significant numbers, the "mean" (μ) and the "spread." A basic course in statistics can help understand the various uses of these terms. Here "spread" refers to the differences in the data points (here the mean of each sample) from the mean across numerous samples. The "spread" is often reported by the "standard deviation" (σ) or "variance" (σ2), which have generally agreed upon definitions for consistency in presentations.
Other arguments for climate change include that the amount of polar ice is rather noticeably diminished. The problem with that approach is that the amount of moisture added to the atmosphere is determined mostly in the tropics, not at the poles. Suppose ice at the poles is melted by sunlight at virtually the same rate as ever. Now suppose cooler temperatures mean the tropics put less water in the atmosphere to replace the water at the poles to replace any ice lost from there. It is at least conceivable then that diminished ice at the poles could mean the planet is cooling on the whole.
Yet another argument for climate change is that the number of tropical storms or hurricanes is increasing and that requires warmer waters. The problem with that argument is that hurricanes are not "caused" by warmer waters. They are caused by a large mass of cold air sliding over a layer of warm air. It is the difference in temperature of the layers that matters, not the average temperature. Again, that could be caused by a cooling planet.
Some of the web sites that offer bad arguments in defense of science might be deliberately designed to identify the amateur proponents of science as they copy what they do not understand. Be careful. Some "religious" people can be surprisingly capable of artifice. Instead of accepting the bad examples noted here search the internet yourself to find the best arguments there are. There could be prizes.
Several web sites that claim to resolve the "twin paradox" of relativity actually do not. And do not get caught by those.
The usual problem with "proving" relativity is that the differences between it and Newtonian physics are far too small for even some of the best financed and equipped laboratories to measure. What is not a problem is that still using Newtonian physics works fine in all real world applications. Many people believe the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system requires relativity. They think its accuracy proves relativity. The truth is that it would be more accurate if relativity were not true and the rather complicated and error prone task of correcting for relativity were not necessary. Fortuitously, the differences that might be caused by relativity even by speedy satellites are far too small to make much difference. Those differences can "hide" in the general differences caused by the limits of precision of manufacturing techniques, temperature of components, and other problems. The GPS system can be "tuned" by adjusting or "calibrating" equipment so that it correctly reads some already well known example location of some particular GPS test receiver. In that case whether the numbers on the dials afterward "confirm" relativity is not significant.
A general problem with people more fond of science than capable of it is their loose definition of science. There is a significant difference between the science of chemistry and the "science" of sociology. In some fields of science it is possible to eliminate, or hold constant across tests, all the other factors that might influence a result in order to get a more precise reading on the influence of one factor as it is precisely changed from test to test. That is called science ceteris paribus because "ceteris paribus" is Latin meaning "other things the same." No one argues the boiling point of water because it is known by science ceteris paribus. Reading whether water boils at various temperatures when all other factors are held constant always gets the same result. Anyone can readily repeat the tests. The boiling point of water is no longer a matter of argument.
It is impossible to answer most questions in life using any such science though. There are going to be differences in genetics, in diet, in exercise, in personality and other life style differences that cannot be eliminated or held constant. Medicine for example must usually depend on statistical analysis which often cannot eliminate any other factors, never mind all of them. Statistical analysis most often does not and should not have the same strength in argument as science ceteris paribus. Amateur "scientists" often expect their arguments to have the same strength as science ceteris paribus when all they typically have are their ill formed assumptions and theories. That drives up the demand for heath care. The cost of health care in the United States is abnormally high because the demand is so high.
Amateur scientists confuse statistical analysis with science ceteris paribus because in their classroom examples of probability studies they use artificially "randomized" data structures, such as a large quantity of red marbles and blue marbles "randomly" jumbled up. There are no such "random" agencies in nature. A classroom example on paper might consider seven billion marbles so thoroughly and precisely jumbled up that the ratio of red to blue is evident after observing only a thousand marbles. In the real life consideration of global atmospheric temperature the assumption of such distribution is not justified. Some "mean" ratio of red to blue marbles or some "mean" temperature of some particular place might begin to appear after very small samples but reducing the "spread" of the distribution curve to sententious numbers requires far larger samples. The spread of the normal distribution curve for the length of a particular type of cockroach will be much smaller than the spread of the normal distribution curve for the length of an assortment of cockroaches, ants, butterflies and spiders. The more unknown or ignored factors and the smaller the samples, the wider the spread. In a manner of speaking science ceteris paribus might be considered a special case of statistical analysis where the spread of the distribution curve is zero or so close to zero that it cannot be detected. Usually though it is assumed all the other factors have been eliminated indeed except errors in measurement equipment.
If science had all the answers there would be no need for marriage or private property. People could simply consult an inexpensive computer program to tell them where they may go, which spouse should give how much money to the other, which days and which hours each spouse should mind children, exactly what lessons the children should learn in school, what they should eat at various meals and so on to every little detail of everyone's life. Too many people already expect government to do that.
The problem with such a seemingly glorious plan is that there is some evidence to suggest that science does not have enough answers, especially "science" driven by majority opinions as suggested above. Amateur scientists think their opinions are facts, not being capable of knowing the difference. People with a well developed moral sense are frightened by people claiming to be scientists and are desperate for help and representation. They are so desperate they still cling to Donald Trump despite his having shown so little talent to address the real problem.
Obviously then science can be far more convincing if the people who are not qualified to defend it did not try to defend it. Stay home, get off the internet and let the professionals handle it. Is it not also true though that many "religious" people make arguments that give religion a bad name, that make it appear to be the problem? Obviously there are some, especially in the last few years, but it is no more fair to characterize religion by them than it is to characterize science by the inferior students of science dominating the internet and television news. The clash between those sides creates more confusion rather than clearing it up. When properly guided by good leaders religion is the art necessary to deal with bitter conflicts over opinions.
Now it should be obvious why science had such a credibility problem before the pandemic. This website and its predecessors have been describing the problem for well over ten years. Many of the articles are redundant because the problem remains the same because the problem is still not recognized because too few people take the lessons. One thing very different recently is the pandemic because it has a rather unusual "emergency" status. Exactitude is often not necessary and often not possible in an emergency. Science can require lengthy, widespread and repeated testing, checking and rechecking. In an emergency it only matters that people are apparently dying, not whether they actually are or, if they are, from what. Either way there is obviously big trouble of one kind or another. If people are disturbed and conspiratorial enough to attempt to fake a pandemic, that is likely far more dangerous than a real virus, and all the more reason to do what authorities recommend or require. Although religion and science are not ordinary concerns of government, social disorder very much is. Government response to the social disorder created by the emergency of the pandemic was what governments are supposed to do. Religion can usually deal with social disorder and assist government, but there can be emergencies where messages get scrambled and plainspoken government must establish order.
It is not true that many "religious" people are in the habit of defying authority, except in the case of a few radical and loosely affiliated "Christians," and in the rare case of authority that does something obviously foolish. There was of course that misunderstanding created by amateurs just before the pandemic, but only very poorly educated people were deceived.
Attempting to blame "religion" for ignorance of science was a big mistake. Hospitals founded and funded by religious organizations remain among the best in the world. Science is far less convincing when it blames religion. To be more convincing science needs to stop characterizing religion by the most embarrassing examples of religion. But true, professional science hasn't really blamed religion, nor does it have any reason to blame religion. Whatever the problem is, it will only be solved by science and religion working together.
There are some credibility problems that even the best rhetoric won't help much to solve, strange coincidences, mistaken reports, faulty logic and other things that really are not so unusual in emergencies.
What the fans of Trump did on January 6th was just what they ever do, but with more intensity, which is to fail to distinguish opinions from facts and to attempt to enforce their opinions by brute strength or numbers of activists, as other groups have for years described on this web site. It was, or turned out to be, less about counting votes and more about counting decibels or even weapons. Ensuring honesty should have been accomplished at a much earlier stage. Failing that, if it so happened, leaves only accepting the consequences of failing that.
It should be punishment enough for most of them that they betrayed their methods. But exactly whose methods were those? It has been known for some time that Trump holds rallies, not analytical discourses. But suppose someone would like to represent the Republicans perfectly capable of debate and more civil behavior? Suppose Amanda Freeman Chase wants to represent the same Republican ideals as Trump, but without insurrection? May I debate for those ideals? Or would the Virginia legislature try their best to stop me as they tried to stop Chase? Isn't that denying people representation?
It may be remembered without increasing the danger that Trump fans are not the only people with difficulty distinguishing facts from opinions.
That is of course the foremost question today in much of the news, whether people should believe in science. The correct answer is that the extent to which people ought to believe in science varies according to times and conditions. At any time though there can be such a thing as too much belief in science. When people believe in science it really isn't science anymore anyway and can give actual science a bad name. That is to say that faith can be a wonderful thing when properly guided, even by science.
When not properly guided by good leaders faith in science can be worse than faith in religion even when that also has no good leaders. That is what too many people are not understanding today.
Several social media web sites are controlled by people who believe faith in religion is the problem and faith in science is the solution. They claim "faith" in science is different and should be called "trust" or "confidence" rather than faith. They have become a public nuisance and their managers need to be replaced. It is necessary to understand that faith in science can be just as bad as, or worse than, any other faith. It is necessary to stop trying to eliminate the art of well guided faith that religion has the means and practice to direct, and science does not.
One reason some attempts to make science convincing are failing is that the people trying have only their misguided faith in science to offer.
A good way to get the point across is to request the people who have too much faith in science to learn to practice some, as is done here. Only then can they be more convincing.
Most news outlets often encourage everyone to vote who can, especially in the weeks before elections. What happens though if the majority is wrong? Are there people who shouldn't vote?
That introduces the question who decides what is right or wrong. If whatever a majority of voters say is always right "by definition" then of course everyone should vote regardless of consequences. It would still be "right" at least by that definition.
Yet the consequences of voting can be very unexpected. There are "facts" that voting cannot change no matter how voters feel about it. An example is national debt. Voters might decide for the government to borrow and spend into whatever level of debt, but there is no way to simply "vote" the fact of that debt away. Whether there should be debt is an opinion. When there is debt, that is a fact. Voting merely decides which opinions will hold sway, the facts remain without regard. Recognizing this the United States sets a "debt ceiling" beyond which it will refuse to borrow more. That doesn't solve the problem if every time the ceiling is approached it is simply raised to allow further borrowing.
A very high national debt or a constantly, rapidly climbing national debt are two examples that can indicate there is a problem with the way people vote. It can indicate the voters are "wrong" and the "definition" otherwise is failing.
While it is important that people participate in government and vote, it is far more important, even essential, that they understand which are facts and which are opinions. It is essential that they understand the likely consequences of their votes.
The problem in the United States for many years, and explained here, has been that voters are "wrong." The evidence, such as it might be, is the national debt. When the voters are mistaken it can eventually become obvious enough for them to learn from their mistakes. That could happen any day now.
The mistakes have been to attempt to determine facts through government. There has been a falling away from facts and an intense dispute over facts. Each side tries to establish their own version of facts through the force of government. It can be a most inappropriate to use of force. On quite many issues in science and religion it is necessary for each side to convince the other of facts and better opinions. That has not happened. Trying to reduce the number of abortions by holding a gun to the heads of people doesn't work when you have to turn away momentarily. Forcing people to accept unqualified notions of science doesn't work on qualified people.
Simple majorities are inadequate. The law becomes meaningless when only about half the people ever agree to it. That is especially true if it changes every two years. It is essential that much larger majorities agree to, and establish, any law for it to be effective.
It continues to be a failing of the Republican Party to regard the extent and power of opinions in conflict with their own.
The Democratic Party has a similar and severe failing to regard the extent and power of opinions in conflict with their own.
If you would like copies I might sign them for you.
It is necessary that both parties eventually convince very much larger majorities of the same set of opinions and facts with other means of persuasion than force of government. That of course will require substantial sorting and schooling.