The higher the stakes, the less we should trust what we're "told". Esp if we're told to "believe and don't question".
It won't always be obvious to you directly, why something is wrong or corrupt, rather this is a sense we have to develop over time: question the people and ideas that we're supposed to "trust".
* I'd suggest a donation to the Center for Investigative Reporting if this resonates
Why should I trust a scientist? Because they have a few fancy letters next to their name? There’s no scientific evidence, according to themselves, that they are any less likely to be sociopaths, psychopaths, immoral, or irresponsible than the average population.
yes they will lie as much as anyone else but when they do not if you take the expected value of what a scientist says in their speciality it is much more likely to be correct.
That's not why people place trust in some scientists. Can you think of other reasons? How do you evaluate anyone's trustworthiness, unless you know them or research them personally (something we don't have time for)? Otherwise, you are stuck with blind mistrust, as you say.
> Blind trust in Hitler caused the Holocaust.
Blind loyalty, perhaps, and following the crowd and avoiding conflict, and amorality.
The observation the parent makes about "high stakes" is fully compatible with the article, and it's just a general observation about similar shit on all domains. The same shit that happens when there are high stakes (products, money, careers, grants, etc.) on the table for scientists/journals is also true for politicians, journalists, regulating bodies, and so on.
It's also not a conspiracy theory: just basic life experience.
Leading the public opinion is happening elsewhere.