* How do we define truth?

Let's say we are given a question that must be answered truthfully under the prevailing theories that also answer all other phenomena we have in our society. That is, an answer based on one foundation must also be able to answer other questions with the same foundation.
What we mean by that is that if more than 95% of people (call them researchers, scientists, laymans or otherwise people dedicated to a certian field) rely on theory X to make a prediction about a phenomena Y, the same theory X should also be a reliable foundation for phenomena Z.
In a more detailed way we could say that if 95% of researchers, scientists, laymans or otherwise people dedicated to this field, for example are acknowledging the same theory X behind making microwave owens and smart LED TV's to work (which we know work), theory Y can not contradict theory X without also explaning how microwave owens and smart LED TV's works.

The 95% is an ad-hoc number. Of course, if a theory X explaining Y number of phenomena, a new theory Z different from theory X, must also include explaining all of the Y number of phenomena. A theory that only explain one statement with words that at the same time can not explain basic or earlier phenomena with the same theory can not be said to be a viable explanation (or theory).
Regardless of political correctness and 'wokeness', this must be a requisite for any conclusion about the truth.

As an example, a common myth is that bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly according to current models or the current aerodynamic theory. That is not in accordance with the actual current theory which without problems can explain why bumble bees can fly. A novel theory that with words says "Bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly according to current scientific knowledge", must present a (aerodynamic) model that expalin why they can't fly and that model must at the same time be able to explain why aeroplanes can. Because, the faulty hypothesis that bumble bees can't fly never goes beyond the actual words. And if they attempted an endevour to make up a theory why bumble bees can't fly, such an attempt would not expalin why aeroplanes can. The reason being that it is actually quite basic aerodynamics to explain why both aeroplanes and bumble bees can fly, and has been for centuries.

We have asked ourselves why 1 in 3 of all people in the world doubt modern science and whether the answer is the same as why, for example, 42% of all Americans either do not believe in Global Warming at all or, if it exists, is a completely natural climate variation that is not caused by us humans and whether (how?) this could possibly be linked to the "Dunning-Kruger" effect?

​​Part of an answer, at least to the first two questions, is that those who are skeptical or even openly hostile to science do not know what science is and how the methodology works or what drives people to science and research. The result is that if you ask the same people who express skepticism according to the first two questions why they are skeptical or even openly hostile to science, you mainly get answers that follow one of the following directions:

1. "Science changes all the time. One day it is one thing that applies and the next something completely different." You simply feel that science is not consistent and reflects an objective truth that is always true, or...
2. You view science as and which is thus driven by some form of underlying like running a political campaign or making money.
3. And this is not really a 3rd point but rather an explanation for the 2 points above being expressed. You have a completely wrong idea about how science is conducted.

You often imagine a white middle-aged man or woman, far out on the political left, who starts their day by asking themselves, for example, "If I make a dinosaur bone out of plaster and photograph it so that you can't see any difference between it and a real fossil, can I write an article that proves evolution?". Or "How can I make money from the Covid pandemic?" And then mixes some toxins, water and microchips and puts a label on a test tube - "Vaccine".
The point is that as many as 1/3 really believe that scientists do what they, themself do when they think about everything from the origin of the universe to how vaccines work, they think about how it could, should and/or how it seems to be and then compile a theory directly from the brain's conclusions from those questions.
Another important point, which becomes obvious when you have seen enough videos from climate deniers, vaccine skeptics, moon landing deniers, conspiracy theorists or so-called , is that could, should or seems are concepts that are analyzed from the same theoretical toolbox that they themselves have. That is, they believe that scientists build their hypotheses and conclusions with exactly the same background information or mathematical competence as they themselves. They simply see themselves as equal in their competence to draw conclusions in a specific field as researchers in the same field. And if you are equal in your competence, then the conclusions are also equally valuable. According to them, even more valuable, since it is not uncommon for you to get 10,000 likes on your conclusion in a -post.

One of the orientations behind science skepticism - that science is used as an ideology and has a (hidden) agenda, suggest that science is an -ism with ideological, often political goals or that it is driven by money and commercialism.
For those who have a better understanding of what science is, this interpretation of what science is, may seem strange. But with that view it is completely logical to call research and science a hoax when it does about our reality and what is true and right. Science is therefore seen as only either a path to make money through research grants but perhaps mostly to benefit a higher political purpose.

The skeptics use a 'new' word for this ideology - "scientism". Scientism works like any other ideology:

You believe in it or not.

An advantage of that view of science, which is certainly not a coincidence, is that you yourself, like scientists, are fully entitled to rationalize a solution to a problem. In short, skeptics of Science have a fundamentally different rational. For example, as has happened, with that view it is completely legitimate to overturn research on Global Warming by stating that it snows in October in a place where it is unusual for that to happen. You can 'see' it from your kitchen window that Global Warming is wrong because it snows when it should be warm.
I.e people with this rational do not grasp differencies in the concepts of local and global. Local situations can't on its own translate to global traits.