Sure, that's a hallowed tradition in America.

And at the same time, blindly trusting institutions and their dogma has long been a turn-on for people with a superiority complex, or those content with the status quo.

Each cheek of the political arse seeks to gain power by simplistically appealing to these groups, because it's more effective for raising funds and votes than it ought to be.

perhaps, perhaps not

one thing is for sure, though: falsely portraying trust in expertise and science as,

"blindly trusting institutions and their dogma"

or

"for people with a superiority complex, or those content with the status quo",

has been a trope of those same anti-science, anti-expertise politicians for even longer. As Asimov wrote:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

You may want to read what I wrote again. I did not "falsely portray trust in expertise and science" etc, not in any way; nor would I. It's rather aggressively wrong to attach such to my point (which you missed).

You seem to have jumped from me saying that some put too much stock in dogma and institutions, to believing that this was an attempt to attack expertise and science. There was nothing in my comment, even implicit, that would lead someone fair to this conclusion.

This assumptive leap typifies the 'with us or against us' thinking I'm talking about; tribal thinking which short-circuits reason, and harms genuine scientific thinking.

Even if you didn't mean to imply this, what you wrote has that effect; consider re-reading your own comment if you don't see that.

You may want to read what I wrote again. I did not accuse you personally of falsely portraying trust in expertise and science, not in any way. It's rather aggressively wrong to take personal offense at such an accusation you imagined.

You seem to have jumped from me criticizing those who do (particularly those who are anti-science and anti-expertise), to an accusation that you personally did so. There was nothing in my comment, even implicit, that would lead someone fair to this conclusion. If you aren't doing it, the criticism doesn't apply to you.

This assumptive leap typifies the persecution complex I'm talking about: emotional thinking which short-circuits reason, and harms genuine scientific thinking. Consider re-reading your own comment if you don't see that.