Except we don't control the "evidence" and often there are external motives, and sometimes its just dumbed down for the masses. Its very topic specific. "trust the science"
The Ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round, and proposed the Earth circled the sun (they had more trouble proving that one). Other "experts" changed it later.
I actually agree with part of what you're saying. There are certainly cases where incentives, politics, money, or simple human bias can influence how information is presented. That's why healthy skepticism is important. Where I think we differ is what conclusion to draw from that.
The fact that people can have motives doesn't mean we can dismiss evidence we don't like. If we're skeptical of one side because they may have an agenda, we should apply the same skepticism to the people challenging them. Otherwise we're just choosing which authority to trust.
And the Greek example is interesting because it reinforces my point rather than undermining it. Some Greeks figured out the Earth was round long before it became widely accepted. They weren't right because they were experts. They were right because they had better reasoning and evidence than their contemporaries. Eventually the consensus caught up to the evidence.
To me, that's how knowledge progresses. Not by rejecting expertise, and not by blindly trusting it, but by continuously testing ideas against reality. That's also why I've never liked the phrase "trust the science." Science isn't a thing you trust. It's a process. Scientists are human beings and can be wrong. The value comes from the fact that claims can be challenged, tested, replicated, and revised.
The real question isn't whether experts can be wrong. Of course they can. The question is what's the best method we have for separating what's true from what merely sounds convincing? Historically, the answer has been evidence, testing, and critical inquiry - science.
knows his stuff …
