IMO while there's some truth to the idea that you act as a scientist when you do certain investigations in the kitchen etc, it's also true that the career of a scientist, and the development of experiments that are statistically valid and controlled and can stand up to peer review and that add to a large established base of knowlegde is NOT what you do in your kitchen or your science class as a 6th grader or 9th grader.
And I think the idea that people with zero science background ARE scientists and able to use their knowledge of the world is part of the problem. Because people's knowledge of the world is very subject to conclusions without controls and improper cause and effect connections and little awareness for how much information there exists and how it crosslinks to form a supported structure.
I am bugged by the way it seems that ifsomeone states an idea no matter how flaky, that seems to give it some claim to validity forever in some people's minds, even if it has been disproved. For instance the idea that plants have consciousness, shown in the lab (by Backster): this information seems to stick even though the measurement was not repeatable and there was and is no basis for taking it seriously. The very fact that someone claimed the idea was true seems to give it a basis in some people's minds. Same with Emoto and his ice crystals.
)
