Science is based on logic and evidence; however such things are seldom readily available for everyone; for this reason it is often necessary to rely on a fallback measure in order not to grope in the dark, and that's where consensus and authority come in; consensus and authority are also important because the vastity and complexity of the world makes it impossible for a normal person to rebuild the entire edifice of science all by himself without relying on the knowledge previously accumulated by other people; for this, a certain amount of trust is inevitable; however, this trust clearly serves as nothing more than a "necessary evil" to adopt for practical purposes, and can in no way take the precedence over logic and evidence who are the very core of the scientific method. Whenever the two come into conflict, the former are always rejected in favor of the latter, and never the other way around; that's the very meaning of the word "trust": accept something as true until contrary proof.
Instead, in state pseudoscience, it works exactly in reverse: logic and evidence are subordinated to consensus/authority; they are followed only as long as they agree with the latter, and discarded the moment they don't. In other words, in state pseudoscience, "trust" is turned into *faith*: the word of the experts keeps being regarded as true even in front of contrary proof, as it happens in religious fanaticism and psychiatric illness.
