From the article:

>"This important role of trust in science, however, is not new. Ever since the emergence of science, scientists had to rely on the work and the testimony of their peers and others in order to make progress... The production of scientific knowledge is not, and never has been, an individual, but a collaborative affair.

Equivocating 'trusting that a fellow scientist isn't fabricating data' to 'trust in science' is so infuriating. Those are two totally different things. The reason I trust in the scientific method is because it tests hypothesis, gathers data, conducts experiments, and reproduces results. I don't "trust in science" because Richard Dawkins is just a great guy who could never tell a lie, I trust in science because any Joe Six Pack could pick up the journal article, recreate the experiment, test the hypothesis, and confirm or deny the results. After so many confirmations or denials, who am I to distrust the science?