> Experts are usually very good at differentiating between levels of evidence. The process of becoming an expert tends to thoroughly educate a person in just how little they actually know.

They know, and are clear about it with their peers but many are very bad at communicating it to the public. There are also experts who are overly attached to their pet theories, or biased, and communicate those things to the public as fact.There are experts who are patronising enough patronising enough to think its not even worth trying to explain things properly to the public.

> The problem is that a bunch of talk about weak studies and probabilities and personal thoughts is not what grabs attention. The few overconfident loudmouths end up being the ones everybody hears from. And you don't even need to be an expert, you just need to sound like one.

All true, Which is why I blame the media as well.

> If you're a nutrition scientist who really knows their stuff and knows how to talk to people so that they understand just what is really known and how well it's known, how in the world do you compete with someone like RFK Jr.?

Good question! The only real solution is better science education, and to keep on plugging away.The most harmful thing is the common perception that experts hand down the truth, rather than understanding the nature of scientific evidence.