Skeptics need to understand that there is a hierarchy of science.
There is science which is unreproducible, motivated solely by profit and decided by committee or, even worse, political expediency. Most of this stuff, the harder you try to verify it the madder it'll drive you.
And there is also science which is founded in mathematical laws, produces demonstrable truths and reproducible evidence, most of which you could verify in your own bedroom if you wanted to.
The first are things like dietary science, epidemiology, immunology, climate science, the social 'sciences', etc.
The latter are things like astronomy, particle physics, genomics, physical chemistry, computer science, mathematics and so on.
The first lot are utterly corrupted in the modern day, plainly open to gross manipulation, and should be torn down and built anew from nothing, very very carefully. The second group are not only redeemable, but they're going through a golden age. It's a great time to be on top of your game in any one of these disciplines, though the funding and academy systems are disgusting and could do with a mild nuking.
And to be my own devil's advocate, /pol/, I'd have say that, for example, it's thanks to a few dietary scientists who dared to rebel and build their own narrative that we can come here and debate ideas like meat and saturated fat being good for you based on dietary and evolutionary evidence, cash crops like onions posing a danger, why it's not a good idea to eat the bugs and so on and so on. I'm sure many people will say "I didn't need no stinkin' science to know that!" but it's a good job we have people out there doing difficult research and wiling to dissent. More power to them, I'd say.
