Trust is a shortcut. You could verify everything diligently, but it takes time, so you rely on others, hence trust.
Scientists' job is to verify as much as possible (not to take the shortcut). Laymen can take the shortcut and trust the scientists.
If a layman wants not to trust the scientists, which is OK, then they should understand that trust is a BIG timesaver, and they have to put lot of effort into educating themselves about WHY scientists say what they say.
Too often, we see laymen questioning the scientific conclusions without putting up the work needed to educate themselves (at the very least, understanding the theories they disagree with). This has worse outcomes than lack of due diligence among scientists.
(And that's why argument from authority is a fallacy among scientists, but is not wrong to apply among general public, where it is a useful heuristic based on trust.)
Scientists' job is to verify as much as possible (not to take the shortcut). Laymen can take the shortcut and trust the scientists.
If a layman wants not to trust the scientists, which is OK, then they should understand that trust is a BIG timesaver, and they have to put lot of effort into educating themselves about WHY scientists say what they say.
Too often, we see laymen questioning the scientific conclusions without putting up the work needed to educate themselves (at the very least, understanding the theories they disagree with). This has worse outcomes than lack of due diligence among scientists.
(And that's why argument from authority is a fallacy among scientists, but is not wrong to apply among general public, where it is a useful heuristic based on trust.)