Nice article. I think many are skeptical of science because they don't really understand how it works. Our schools in the US do a terrible of job of teaching this--mostly focusing on scientific theories and facts, not on the actual methods of science. Our daughters were even in a science magnet program, but that too was really just a veneer of science--it was too rushed to be anything else.

Consider, for example, when people who don't understand science hear that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is great for certain women for a decade, then suddenly hear that it is not recommended because it increases the risk of heart attacks and breast cancer. With a near total understanding of science, it is easy to dismiss all scientists as quacks, or as people with some hidden (bad) agenda. What people don't realize is that science uses the best methods possible to get at the "truth" (in scare quotes to satisfy the philosophers), but that as evidence accumulates, our understanding changes. Yes, in fact, HRT is beneficial, but yes it does increase risk of certain diseases. What this means is that we must be more selective about who receives it--weighing the risks and benefits. One of the best short essays I've read to explain science to a non-scientist is Isaac Asimov's The relativity of wrong. It still doesn't get the scientific method across, but it does explain how science progressives, even though it is almost always "wrong".