> Only a very small percentage of the world has a complete grasp on the evidence for natural selection, climate change, the big bang, etc...
I'm guessing only a small number (1-2 digits of people) has a "complete grasp" on the evidence for any one of those topics at all, and there isn't a single human on earth with a "complete grasp" on all of them. To support the article, integrating knowledge of fields that you don't have "complete grasp" on still requires faith in institutional processes that produce what we call "science".
And this is even more complicated when it comes to the replication crisis—I'm guessing having a "complete grasp" on the understanding the literature represents of difficult to reproduce fields is 0. I don't know much about climate change work myself, but it seems like such a dynamic and chaotic field that many results on specific claims of cause and impact are going to be difficult to reproduce.
I'm guessing only a small number (1-2 digits of people) has a "complete grasp" on the evidence for any one of those topics at all, and there isn't a single human on earth with a "complete grasp" on all of them. To support the article, integrating knowledge of fields that you don't have "complete grasp" on still requires faith in institutional processes that produce what we call "science".
And this is even more complicated when it comes to the replication crisis—I'm guessing having a "complete grasp" on the understanding the literature represents of difficult to reproduce fields is 0. I don't know much about climate change work myself, but it seems like such a dynamic and chaotic field that many results on specific claims of cause and impact are going to be difficult to reproduce.