[nonameiguess]

Being skeptical of cutting edge research is a lot different than distrusting science. There are plenty of people out there denying special relativity, evolution by natural selection, or believing all of western medicine is invalid, based on extrapolation from stuff like this.

I won't speak for all textbooks, but generally stuff you find in there should not be the same as what you find in journals, and is much more settled. Big caveat that that isn't necessarily true for younger sciences without long-established theory, say exercise physiology or social psychology, but something like a chemistry textbook is pretty damn trustworthy.

And those are what people who aren't actually scientists should mostly be educating themselves with, not newspaper science reporting sections.

[epolanski]

Doubting a scientific paper results is different from distrusting science.

Academia is a complex place and it's full of fake results to get publications. (I'm coauthor of several scientific papers and I know for a fact countless highly rated papers in my former field are not reproducible because they come from adjusted numbers).