We can't really judge scientific claims for ourselves in most cases. And indeed this is actually true for most scientists as well outside of their own specialties. So if you think about it, a geologist can't tell you whether a vaccine is safe.
Most chemists are not experts in evolutionary theory. A physicist cannot tell you, despite the claims of some of them, whether or not tobacco causes cancer. So, if even scientists themselves have to make a leap of faith outside their own fields, then why do they accept the claims of other scientists? Why do they believe each other's claims? And should we believe those claims?--Naomi Oreskes
My favorite part of Naomi's brief talk below is a distinction she makes between the logical fallacy--Appeal to Authority and what we should actually glean from scientific claims. The goal needs to be consensus. We have a moral obligation to be curious, to be honest, and to persevere. Not only pay attention during eureka moments but also "what is that" queries.
What can we find if we link data sources, reimagine the data embedded in our own systems, and look to the larger network of connectivity? We can move across multiple nodes engaging Genuine Intelligence--or GI. We can allow Artificial Intelligence to augment our behavior but let's rely on Genuine Intelligence to formulate meaningful human level solutions.