> I would say a strong counter to your argument is that Covid highlighted the need for much better STEM education, because of how painfully obvious it was that so many do not understand "the science".

I'd argue that information literacy is more important. I know plenty of STEM-credentialed people who might have insight into their narrow STEM field, but are effectively data illiterate when it comes to evaluating data that's from outside of their field of expertise.

Even then, I don't think the majority of the people that COVID exposed as "not understanding the science" really don't understand it. It's just that they don't care. We're mistaking their lack of giving a shit about the truth for a genuine misunderstanding of the science.

Definitely agree that it's a data literacy problem. But I consider that part of STEM education. For example, people should be able to look at plots of daily infections early in the pandemic and consider that they likely are growing at an exponential rate and the implications for that, rather than dismissing the dangers because the daily case numbers are still small. And understand how false positive and false negative rates of tests implicate policy decisions.

But you are ultimately correct in that most people don't really care to understand it.

I don't think science education is going to help the particular problems we have. Understanding science doesn't change anything if you don't trust the institution running the experiments, and it's become very clear that a large percentage of the population doesn't trust the institutions we have.