A conversation I had yesterday, summarized.
Friend: I don't think the speed of light is the real limit.
Friend: Yes. I think we're going to find a way past it eventually. Just like how we found ways past other supposed limits and barriers in the past.
Me: Fair enough.
Friend: But, I shouldn't say that.
Me: Why not?
Friend: I'm not a physicist.
Me: So? You have a tentative idea based on intuitions and knowledge you have. Nothing wrong with that.
Friend: Okay, then the world is only 6000 years old and relativity is a lie! :P
Me: You realize that the options here aren't 'take what you think scientists said as gospel' and 'yammer wildly and put complete trust in any inkling that comes to mind', right?
The conversation switched soon after that, but what struck me was that the very idea that a person could have so much as a tentative, qualified view that may run against the scientific consensus was alien to this person. To say 'I don't find the evidence I've encountered compelling thus far' was as heretical as questioning whether Mary was a virgin is to the hardened Catholic. In fact, possibly moreso.
This is not 'a person who trusts in and accepts science.' This is a bizarre, creepy mentality encouraged by people who should be fighting it.