There is a growing perception that people don't trust science, and that this is taken advantage of by unscrupulous politicians to advance dangerous policies, for example, by disregarding anthropogenic climate change.
While many people are less educated regarding the nature of scientific inquiry, and therefore discount 'science', many people who do understand the scientific method also distrust public proclamations of 'science'.
There are good reasons to do so. A lot of science is counter-intuitive (relativity, quantum physics, etc...), and people who are unable to understand how this science is done, or why scientists propose such theories, go with their gut. They choose common sense over what seems to them to be mysterious mumbo jumbo, and take heart that, as new research is conducted, theories considered scientifically sound change. Regardless of whether the general conclusions of the theory are even challenged, they will accept any change in the theory as refutation - and, insofar as proponents of the original theory proclaimed absolute certainty that the theory was correct, they will be right to do so.
The vast array of chemicals that, once thought safe, are now believed harmful; the flip-flopping on the relative merits of naturally occurring substances in foods to artificial substitutes, such as saccharine or polyunsaturated fats; and the controversy over moderate alcohol intake, are all taken by such people as vindication of their suspicion of science.
Indeed, they are not wrong, and all too often researchers allow hubris to lead them to incorrect or overstated conclusions.
While some people don't much understand science, most everyone does understand that scientists have financial incentives to do certain work, or to work to support particular theories. In fact, there are a lot of studies conducted in many fields that are pure fraud, or released prematurely, or biased. Given that those that intentionally put out falsified work do so as cryptically as possible, differentiating between honest errors and purposeful fraud can be practically impossible, particularly for people with a limited understanding of the science to begin with.
Being skeptical of statements of which a subset must be untrue is not unreasonable. Going with interpretations of people you feel agree with you on other matters is the best you can do when you are unable to ascertain the truth yourself, and given people's inclination to form sociopolitical groups, is also our natural response.
Bad science, research that is intended to support pre-existing biases, bad reporting, propaganda, and opaque complexity, all contribute to a reasonable and honest distrust of science.
Even those of us that understand the scientific process and wholly endorse it are divided according to what we believe is sound research and what is politically or financially motivated fraud. I know highly intelligent people with various views on climate change ranging from wholehearted parroting of MSM promulgated anthropogenic warming, to heartfelt skepticism, to utter certainty that we are at the cusp of a plunge into a new ice age.
There is sound evidence for all positions, and particularly good reasons to be skeptical of all possibilities. It is not, however, skepticism that is problematic, but certainty. Certainty is the product of a closed mind.
Was it Plato that said "I know one thing: that I know nothing."? From Copernicus, to Newton, to Darwin, to Einstein, there is no scientist that has revolutionized science with new and widely accepted theory that has not been proved wrong in part. This is not to say that Copernicus was wrong to put the Sun at the center of our solar system, but that his theory was incomplete, and needed revision once we had better understanding, which Newton gave us.
If you don't keep an open mind regarding science, you are the problem, and everyone that disagrees with you will be right to do so.
I have hardly mentioned fraud, political and financial manipulation, or malice. All of these forces impact research and the science we learn today, and even stupid people can understand these things. It may even be likely that the more educated you are in hard science, the less educated you are regarding how these forces affect science.
Given the response to Pilot Wave Theory, Stabilization Theory, and American Archaeology, from the scientific community I would not be surprised if that were, in fact, the case.
The reasonable, and often correct, suspicion of the meaning of scientific studies, theories, and scientists themselves is not the enemy of science. Certainty is.
If you are absolutely sure that any given statement is absolutely true, then you are wrong.
I am certain of it.