You totally miss the point. Even when someone does not understand all the science they can still check whether the basic principles have been met. Those are:
1. Observe something.
2 Formulate a possible explanation (hypothesis) for the observation.
3. Make up a test for that explanation.
4. If the test fails, return to step 2, or seek more observations.
5. If the test succeeds, the explanation might be promoted to a theory and used to test other explanations. And it might not.
A great many hypotheses are used as if they had been proven when they are demonstrably false. When I was a teacher in the Air Force we taught that a magnetic field moved across a conductor and induced a current. Well, that was not true; a magnetic field does not move. It is entirely imaginary. If you wrap wire around a donut shape you can not detect a magnetic field anywhere outside the core, but it still works exactly as if the field moved across the wires. So the fact that something works does not prove that your explanation of it is valid.
When you study any scientific topic, watch for the word "falsify". You only rarely hear any mention of a hypothesis being falsified. Scientists will make up fudge factors by the dozens before they will admit that their theory has been falsified, as long as the theory is accepted by "consensus". Propose something that has not been approved by "consensus" and you might be physically ejected from the room.
BTW I was one of the engineers designing the satellite uplink system to put VH1 on the air, so I have pretty well demonstrated that I understand a helluva lot, without regard to your science religion.