No, the antithesis of the scientific spirit is to believe anything joe nobody posts on facebook or twitter that fits your worldview, regardless of (or perhaps especially due to) the presence of contradictory facts.

The essence of science, and what is meant by "trust the science", is to accept theories that fit the existing data until such time as new data contradicts them, while encouraging people to ruthlessly search for just such data which would falsify them.

Sadly, there are a lot of people whose only standard of proof for conspiracy theories is that it contradicts what experts claim.

Maybe you saw “trust the science” used in different ways, but the way I saw it used was:

- to shut down any debate as the science was “settled”

- to argue for censorship as any discussion that went outside the approved borders of “settled science” was by default false and dangerous to expose people to

- to argue that the “flavor of the month” study was the final word no matter how rigorous the research study was

Just like there's people whose only standard of proof is the word of "experts", regardless of (or perhaps especially due to) the presence of contradictory facts.