> The fact remains that if one were to assume that every single scientific discovery of the last
> 25 years was complete bullshit, they'd be right more often than they were wrong.
This is not a fact, it's a claim (may even by a hyperbole, we don't know for sure). But even at that, you're overlooking a very important perspective: there are more important and less important discoveries (results) and thus the effect of them being wrong should also be weighted. I'd also be inclined to think that the more important ones are scrutinized more and thus are likely to be right more often.
The great and unique thing with science, not ignoring the issues you've raised, is that it can correct itself. And it's better at it than everyday people are. So yep, the issues mentioned by you and others should be corrected (and some of these, like the replication issues and the publication bias, etc. are well known which means that I'm sure they are being worked on). But the general public also has to learn that science is still our best chance to understand reality.
Because most science (and thus reality) deniers usually just look at it as if it was a simple choice between "do I believe them or not" as in "do I let myself be lied to/mislead or not". Whereas the real choice is who do I rather believe? The science guy or myself (without knowing much about anything, basically). Which will give me the better results? Because when I have to make a decision (e.g. vaccinate or not) then it will be a decision between these too. (Just like "vaccinate or not" is really a decision of "contract the virus with or without being pre-immunized by the vaccine". And not "do I want to risk the side effects or not".)
This is not a fact, it's a claim (may even by a hyperbole, we don't know for sure). But even at that, you're overlooking a very important perspective: there are more important and less important discoveries (results) and thus the effect of them being wrong should also be weighted. I'd also be inclined to think that the more important ones are scrutinized more and thus are likely to be right more often.
The great and unique thing with science, not ignoring the issues you've raised, is that it can correct itself. And it's better at it than everyday people are. So yep, the issues mentioned by you and others should be corrected (and some of these, like the replication issues and the publication bias, etc. are well known which means that I'm sure they are being worked on). But the general public also has to learn that science is still our best chance to understand reality.
Because most science (and thus reality) deniers usually just look at it as if it was a simple choice between "do I believe them or not" as in "do I let myself be lied to/mislead or not". Whereas the real choice is who do I rather believe? The science guy or myself (without knowing much about anything, basically). Which will give me the better results? Because when I have to make a decision (e.g. vaccinate or not) then it will be a decision between these too. (Just like "vaccinate or not" is really a decision of "contract the virus with or without being pre-immunized by the vaccine". And not "do I want to risk the side effects or not".)