Science is based on reasoning (EDIT: and evidence), not trust. Asking people to trust scientists is an anti-science statement, IMHO.
(Of course, vaccines are pretty obviously a great thing, and there is no reason to believe they cause autism.)
(Of course, vaccines are pretty obviously a great thing, and there is no reason to believe they cause autism.)
Thinking about problems don't provide new information. It's the same basic fallacy as assuming a really really powerful AI could deduce QM from a few minutes of webcam footage.
In either case, the emphasis is on conclusions being bought in the currency of experience.
Or in a more down to earth example, if we stop building ever higher energy particle accelerators there are things we simply don't get to know.
I understand but disagree. If a member of the public trusts scientists on some particular issue, what they're doing is not science (because science is based on reasoning and evidence and controlled experiments and mathematics and so on) but that doesn't mean it's anti-science. There's nothing wrong with someone who isn't a scientist making a decision by means other than Doing Science -- after all, if they could do that then they would be a scientist.
Trusting what scientists tell you is (for most people, most of the time) rational behaviour even if it isn't doing science. The only reason why scientists don't always do it is that they have an even better option, namely actually doing science. People who aren't scientists usually don't.
(Note 1. Actually, most of the time scientists also trust what other scientists say, and quite right too. Note 2. Of course Doing Science isn't really an activity strictly limited to Real Scientists; anyone can, in principle, do it. But in practice, for most areas of active research, doing it competently requires the right sort of brain, the right sort of training, and sometimes the right equipment, and the great majority of the people who have those are scientists.)