People trust science implicitly 1000 ways every day: when they get in their car, when they check Facebook, when they step into an airplane, when they take some Advil, when they eat a Snickers bar, when they take an antibiotic, when they take Viagra, when they make a phone call, etc.
So the question is not "why don't people trust science," the question is "why do people very selectively mistrust small segments of science?"
A plausible answer is because there are people and organizations who are encouraging them to mistrust those small segments of science--by purposefully feeding bad information into the marketplace of ideas.
I think Adams is making a fundamental error of attribution, blaming good actors (real scientists) for the actions of bad actors. He's basically arguing that unless scientists can stop all bad information from anyone, they can be blamed for the bad information. Doesn't seem fair or sustainable.
So the question is not "why don't people trust science," the question is "why do people very selectively mistrust small segments of science?"
A plausible answer is because there are people and organizations who are encouraging them to mistrust those small segments of science--by purposefully feeding bad information into the marketplace of ideas.
I think Adams is making a fundamental error of attribution, blaming good actors (real scientists) for the actions of bad actors. He's basically arguing that unless scientists can stop all bad information from anyone, they can be blamed for the bad information. Doesn't seem fair or sustainable.