This is why trusting the science is a really unscientific thing to do.
Science, in terms of the scientific method, is about the only thing we can trust. In fact, for those who really want to know something about the external, the scientific method is the way to do so. Now, even this phrase has been propagandized, in recent years. But, the workflow is something even children work out and use implicitly. E.g., hypothesis: "I believe my parents won't notice if one extra cookie has been eaten"; test: on different days, sometimes I eat an extra cookie, sometimes I don't (imagining the "advanced" "juvenile delinquent" / "budding 'scientist'"); result: what days did my parents notice, yell at me, etc.
In the world more generally, one of the ways we correct for the error introduced by crappy human beings / information (unintentional and not), is repeatability. This is incessantly drummed into people who choose science as a career-path, at any credible institution. And, it's a key factor, especially in the face of continuing efforts by propagandists of all stripes to turn the world into "Idiocracy" - a reference I make not for rhetorical purposes vis-a-vis its title, but rather because the actual content of the film truly matches what current trends, taken decades out, realistically likely turn the world into.
Yes, it is. The operating function of science is to question. What's unscientific is leveling the field between hypotheses with some data and those without, or worse, elevating an unsubstantiated guess above a theory with a track record.