Problem is, Karl, that much of the general public has a hard time understanding what science is about and especially what scientists sometimes talk about. It's not that they're complete idiots (some are, but that's not the point here), it's that most people have not had an interest in science to the point that they want to know about it. What makes things worse is that journalists try to interpret what they're told and invariably get the bull by the tail or just make things up in order to "sell" a story. The science is either completely watered down and misinterpreted or it's utterly false and bears no resemblance to what they were informed about. Another thing, because someone may have a technical background doesn't necessarily mean they will understand science. They may have a handle of the applied side of things but that's far from actually understanding the theory and the practice behind the theory. Most of those areas of science you have mentioned are not for the fainthearted and even to have a good grasp of them in descriptive terms takes having a good background in the subjects. It's hard enough for those scientist doing work in these fields to come to grips with the theories as they present themselves. Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be for someone, even with a technical bent, to come to terms with them. For most of the general public, it goes right over the tops of their heads. No matter what way you think of them, reductionist or holistically, saying that they're wrong requires that you know enough to have a good enough reason to say that they are. It's very much put your money where your mouth is with science...you either know or you don't. Most don't know, so anything they say is nothing more than opinion and in most cases opinion taken from ignorance or very little background knowledge at best.
And you know what makes things worse??...even the scientists don't always agree with one another. So, you get conflicting views. Leaves poor "Joe Public" in a bit of a mess, doesn't it
