I've been thinking about how the work of science communication is hampered by the lack of science education in the general populous.

What I mean is, when we say we know something it is because it has been put through a set of standards and logic.

When people think we are just making it up, its dangerous

There is a lack of understanding the level of rigor that goes into making a scientific claim. That nuisance is often missed.

So when lay people read news articles or papers, I worry that they don't understand to how evaluate claims placed in front them.

How do we know what we know?

What is a hypothesis and how do you test it?

What are appropriate positive and negative controls?

What's the difference between a scientific rule vs theorem vs a law?

How does something rise to the level of scientific law?

When we say we should "believe experts" I think people treat it superficially. What we're really saying is "believe the people who understand the process of making and testing a scientific hypothesis." Not the personality, not the hopefulness.

...and let's be real--some of ya'll scientists could use a refresher in this fundamental pedagogy.

Scientists get in trouble all the time, when we think that our expertise is global. (example, physicist who put magnets in their nose to treat COVID19)

While disciplines have diverged and solidly naturally, it was also done intentionally. We must understand the logic making of a discipline before you can contribute to it, let alone critique and implement.

So when we talk to a general population that hated science in primary schools (middle/high school). I think this is really a hindrance for communication as well as for understanding on the other.

And this isn't about intelligence. As a prof in engineering, I would woefully confused if I picked up a neuroscience article right now.

The focus on "innate intelligence" stops people from accessing science or makes people get offended when you try to shift their thinking.