Why some people do not accept some pronouncements in science

"When the proof exists, but you don't have the education or resources to understand it, then you are screwed.

That is the problem we are discussing here."

That sounds somewhat elitist to me. Should the same thing apply to government? Should the government make decisions contrary to what the people want? When the country was young, it was common among the ruling class to believe that only the wealthy should vote. It was believed the poor were not capable of knowing what was good for themselves or the country. If they were educated and intelligent enough to vote wisely they would be rich themselves.

I am a fan of the PBS series NOVA I never miss an episode my work schedule allows me to see. I have yet to come across a scientific idea I was not able to understand and I don’t think I am anything special. I think most people can understand scientific information when it is presented in the right way.

No. The same thing does not apply to government.

Science is about provable facts. The decisions made in a democracy are mostly subjective... there is no scientific experiment to decide if gay marriage should be legal or if healthcare is a right or a privilege.

There is an issue of class and education. It isn't fair that people who are wealthy have more access to knowledge... but it doesn't change the value of education.

People in general have a very poor understanding of science. Most people can't explain how we know the Earth revolves around the Sun, and few people can explain basic things about biology like how RNA works.

I used to think this was a bad thing... that everyone in society should have a basic understanding of science. Now I realize it is just the way things are, most people don't have the time or interest to really study mathematics or biology.

But this means that society depends on scientists. We have a society that depends heavily on science that most citizens don't understand.

https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+method

You are babbling.

You can always identify amateur philosophers because they argue with cliches and personal insults instead of facts and logic.

You all need to learn to use google and try to develop some curiosity and look up things you haven't learned yet. Here is a site that can amuse you for a few days, more if you decide to investigate things a little deeper:
https://www.science-frontiers.com/sfonline.htm

Too difficult a concept to grasp?

I've not seen any facts or logic in your posts, just an outstanding ignorance of irony, similar to someone else's.

And here's one for you, should keep you out of mischief and you may learn something.

http://www.nickjr.co.uk/peppa-pig/

You know, you do have to actually “think” about the things you read, right? I don’t see any evidence of actual understanding in your case. You seem more like a search engine blindly matching words without understanding the context.

You offer personal insults in lieu of actual logic. A large fraction of what we call science is defended only by personal insults, but that does not make it right.

he insults others by claiming that hes been insulted, when only his "beliefs" are being ridiculed and hes unable to argue back.

He posts conspiracy blogs and all sorts of sites ending in( .com), not realizing that one person with the time and coding ability can spread any sort of garbage an guys like he will lap it up without any gree of skepticism.

Skepticism is also a hallmark of sciience. Thats one of the reasons that Journals "waste" so much time and effort at peer review