Justification

Scientists should have this problem more often than they actually have it.  A person with little scientific background due to lack of opportunity says, "Hey, how does gravity work?"  The scientist says, "The curvature of space-time causes gravity to work."  The person replies, "Wow, that's neat.  Can you give me more detail?"

The scientist gives more detail, in layman's terms.  The person seems skeptical and wants more justification.  The scientist gives a full justification with math that's well beyond the layperson's capabilities.  The person is faced with the decision on whether or not to trust the scientist's work without actually being able to understand it.  Most will.  But what if instead the person said, "I'm sorry, I just can't see it.  Can you make this justification any easier?"

What does the scientist say then? "Just trust the experts"? Trusting authority figures isn't scientific proof of anything.  But clearly the layperson doesn't have the luxury of going to school to understand the curvature of space-time due to other preferences and responsibilities.  The layperson could still say, "I'm sorry, that all looks like jibber jabber to me.  As far as I can tell, space-time curvature and gravity may have no relation whatsoever because that justification means nothing to my limited mind."

Is this person entitled to such an opinion?  I would say so, even though it's most likely a foolish opinion to have.  The layperson's only other option is to research the topic of space-time curvature in their own spare time, if such time is even available.

It's just not good for scientists to get into the habit of saying, "Trust us, we're the experts.  We have data to back it up too, even though it may look like gibberish to you."  Politicians do the same thing.