Those people will never need to understand science because they will never use it in their daily lives.
That's not completely true. While people with those beliefs are the minority, some are also present in the scientific community and they're often used as leading "evidence" by these groups of alt-believers.
Take climate change deniers, per example.
According to NASA, 3% of climate experts don't believe human actions are the responsible for global warming/climate change; so basically, if you put 34 scientists in a room, at least one of them should believe that it's all a hoax.
Another example is how Wakefield's study that vaccines cause Autism became one of, if not the most famous, arguments Anti-vaxxers believers use.
Small cases like those are enough for people to embrace their personal belief and believe they have part of the scientific community voicing them. And when popular opinion starts differentiating from the scientific consensus things get a bit dangerous, because the former is usually more influential despite being more irrational. So yes, not only these pseudo-sciences might affect their daily lives but everyone's as they get more and more spread across every kind of places.
EDIT: Hmm, I think my point here wasn't too clear.
What I meant, was like; there are deniers everywhere, and the facts they are a thing can influence multiple people's lives. This ends up affecting how science is used on everyday (e.g. education professionals, "doctors", scientists with alternative beliefs, etc.). Even though the majority of people doesn't work with science directly, the ones that do can affect larger groups and influence the environments they represent.
And on that matter, what's to say that people shouldn't be questioning science anyway?
We should and we do, but the whole idea of science is it debating itself with factual evidence.
Pseudo-sciences make stuff up/deny existing proof so they can impose themselves. I'm not sure why we should risk sacrificing a space that allows everyone to argue their ideas as long as they're coherent for one where people just use baseless conjecture based on superstitions, personal beliefs, or half-truths to assert their points.
Lol, if you think they're lying you can just go and test their theories. That's the whole point of science, scientists with different opinions on all kinds of subjects testing to see which one is the most fitting to explain the events of nature/how it works.
We live in a world where "alternative science" and psuedo-science have platforms to reach wide audiences.
Is it too late to stop the flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, essential oil sellers, and the like from giving themselves false legitimacy and causing the very idea of objective knowledge to become the subject of debate? Does this frustrate you? Is an internet Zelda forum a healthy place to try to process that frustration?
Please share your thoughts below.
As for the OG question, no, it's not impossible.
While these have always existed, the actual beliefs do feel like a step back.
It's a bit hard to know if the easy access to these ideas via the internet are actually spreading the word or just making it easier for their followers to meet each other and make more noise. I feel like it's something that should be addressed in a civilized manner, and that it should be something to be called out publicly more so the next generations are a bit more aware of it.