I find your claim amusing. I am a working scientist, publishing in pretty good journals. What I'm saying is that 'science' has a massive problem getting people to trust it because the way motivations are aligned for scientists encourages them to enhance the popular distrust of currently written 'facts.'

As for making things 'comprehensible' - while you express an ideal, the real issue is that most papers require quite a bit of extrapolation to lead to an interesting result. Usually a paper is 'an example of X' or 'suggestive of Y' rather than proof positive of universal truth. Look at yesterday's Nature article about cold fusion for a fun (and exaggerated) musing on the problems of this strategy.