I have a slight problem equating scientific findings to opinions. It simultaneously lowers the concept of scientific findings and arbitrarily raises the concept of opinions.
Opinions are based in beliefs: they are not supported by fact. Scientific fact is supported by repeated observations and can model predictions. There is a huge distinction.
When a scientist publishes his findings: that’s not opinion. That’s a scientific theory that has gone through several layers of a priori analysis and is supported by the observable world.
This article seems helpful on the surface but I think it does more harm than good when you could’ve said, to summarize, “some theories have more evidence than others”. Instead you equate scientific findings to the opinions of scientists which lowers the confidence one would have in scientists by lowering their findings to the mere opinion of a layperson.