Studies have shown over and over again that scientific literacy is no panacea against believing in bad science and that facts are poor counter-points to aggressive disinformation. HN is filled to the brim with people who declare their STEM credentials quite loudly but who seem to only have enough scientific literacy to google for papers from which they can cherry-pick stats to support their own politically-motivated positions.
yep, this is part of what I was trying to say. There are a lot of STEM-heads who like to point to their interest, employment or education in STEM as credentials for their rationality but who are mostly incapable of thinking critically. The level at which you have to critically engage with topics like empiricism and epistemology are way beyond the level of science education and towards being an actual research scientist.
Panacea is a strawman. If a little extra science education would relieve society of at least a few homeopaths, flat earthers, and free-energy kooks, maybe that's enough?
