There’s a subtlety in the idea of ever changing science that even “pro-science folk” miss. Suppose some evidence conforms to a prejudice a person has, then the evidence later with a better theory suggests that the previous idea is wrong. People struggle with that.

This is not an antivax argument but rather just pointing out that it has become very popular to be “pro-science” which many people don’t understand the ever changing nature of the science used. Many conclusions will probably not change but some will, are they ready to accept it if doesn’t conform to their prejudice?

Being blindly “pro-science” in that sense of whatever confirms to the prejudice is just as bad as rejecting science entirely and doing “your own research”.

Either way it baffles me to see people not practitioners of science try to school others in the science they themselves do not fully grasp or adhere to, and also the other end that discredits all science and believing simple stupid conspiracy theories while not understanding the science they discredit. It’s funny to see these conspiracy arguments are always a few lines away from being dismantled but people like the simple stupid stuff because it perhaps makes them feel on top of things. Weird times.