Well... There is science and then there is science. The science Alan and I are talking about is a filtered science, the one that reaches us common folks, via media. Our friend here, TechTalk, will often provide the right definition for the true science (the non-filtered one), which is of course correct.
But none of us here are true scientists (with possibly a few exceptions). We all have access only to the filtered version, where we are told that's what experts say. That's where the natural path of developing knowledge appears often as flip-flopping, and causes distrust for science (or "science").
But that is not the real problem. The real problem is that the science is first transformed into the filtered version of itself, then into mandated science (like ridiculous mask rules, as described in the meme above).
Then, based on the mandated science (note that the authorities always justify their mandated rules as based on science, hence my shortening into "mandated science") we start snitching on neighbors, shaming, attacking or even killing curfew or mandate breakers, are prohibited from leaving our homes, arrested, sent to jail, etc.
So, yes, the perception of the real science gets distorted by the filtered and mandated ones by the time it reaches a Joe Blow. And the real science becomes guilty by association.
Actually, I take a much more sinister view. Real science tends to be very slow moving and results usually show that there is a broad range of possibilities. For example, how effective are masks? Well the Lancet put out a report about a year ago that said masks could help stop the spread somewhere between 6% to 80%. 6% would do essentially nothing whereas 80% would stop the pandemic practically over night. However, this range is almost never mentioned.
Instead those with a political agenda pick the end that would help them the most. For those whom are pro-mask, they say science shows masks could help stop the spread by as much as 80%. Although this is technically true (and a trick TT often falls for), it is highly deceptive since they are not stating the lower end of the spectrum. They of course realize they are doing this but care more about there politics then actually broadcasting the science.
So, a year later, after the science has been purposely distorted repeatable, the public believes that if only everyone had worn masks we would never have had this pandemic while ignoring the fact that 90+% of the country was indeed wearing masks (and the less then 10% that was not is too small of a percentage to matter).
Another great example is the claim that 1 in 5 college women are sexually assaulted. This came from an Internet volunteer only survey being advertised on websites that dealt with sexual assault. So the survey incorporated both a selection bias (by only advertising to women who already had enough of an interest in sexual assault to search out information) and a participation bias (by being a non-paid survey which only those interested in the subject will participate in). So this survey was by no mean accurate, and knowingly designed that. The researchers, one of whom was a woman, were trying to gin up interest on sexual assault on campus so they could get enough grants/donations to perform an actual non-biased study. They stated this publicly along with that this result should not be taken as true. However the HRC campaign latched onto this and now many actually think 20% of college women are sexually assaulted even though that percentage is a good deal higher then the worst countries in the world for sexual assault, making it obviously absurd.
The politics of climate change does this all the time too. We often here that we are detecting so many more hurricanes then what we use to in the years past, so that is proof of how serious climate change is. What they never point out though is that most hurricanes drift out into the Bermuda Triangle somewhere before dying out, and, before the advent of weather satellites, they would have largely never had been noticed, let alone recorded, in the past. Furthermore, the number of hurricanes that make landfall have been remarkably consistent over the last century. So actually, although the statement that we are detecting more is technically true, the implication that it is because we are having more hurricanes is actually false.
So, in my view, whnever you hear a politician (aka anyone in government) saying "the science shows," they are probably distorting the science purposely for political reasons.