When presented with unwelcome scientific evidence, it seems, in a desperate bid to retain some consistency in their world view, people would rather conclude that science in general is broken
That's not all that surprising if the sample group didn't feel very knowledgeable or comfortable about how science works to start with. For example, I'd wager a group of non-computer literate people would hold more favorable or less favorable views about the merits of computers if results for some computer experience gave them a very positive or negative experience. I mentally walked myself through that study, and presented myself with the "scientific results" that contradicted my existing view. My reaction was simply "are you sure?" I'd likely be skeptical of the testing/measurement methods, but not the merits of science itself.
That's not all that surprising if the sample group didn't feel very knowledgeable or comfortable about how science works to start with. For example, I'd wager a group of non-computer literate people would hold more favorable or less favorable views about the merits of computers if results for some computer experience gave them a very positive or negative experience. I mentally walked myself through that study, and presented myself with the "scientific results" that contradicted my existing view. My reaction was simply "are you sure?" I'd likely be skeptical of the testing/measurement methods, but not the merits of science itself.