These days there are far too many faux scientists who sell whatever "science" is paying the most money. The "global warming" fraud is a recent example of big money buying a lot of lies pretending to be science.
It depends on the scope of the inquiry; the validly of the scientific methodology applied; the original hypothesis and the deductive and nomological explanations arrived within the parameters of those explanations; with an identification of any outstanding anomalies still present.
I pick and choose
No. I am a bit too old. I remember when they use to say that without sun light there can be no life! Then someone got the great idea of sending an ROV to the bottom of the ocean, SUPRISE!!! LIFE with out light. LOL I also remember they said that the Coelacanth was Extinc , then a fisherman off the coast of SO america caught in his net SUPRISE!!!. Then I remember when they said the moon was too soft to land on and that the LEM would sink in about 2-3 feet of dust and be trapped! SUPRISE!!!!
so No I dont.
Haven't had too many 1:1 conversations with scientists recently. If I read something in a magazine, online or hear on Tv and it interests me I usually do a bit of research before passing on the info in conversation. Doesn't mean it's true if it checks out though.
What amazes me most is how often I'm wrong.
Not everything, but that is the benefit of peer review, there is always someone out there with an ego that would love nothing more then to prove you wrong. It is what keeps science pure and ultimately seeking the truth.
Until proven otherwise.
In other words...Dynamo.