How Does Trust In Science Relate To The Lived Experience?

As humans,
the only facts and reasoning we have access to
are limited to human abilities.

Whatever truths exist beyond our sight,
we simply can't see.

Whatever is beyond the reach of our understanding,
we simply can't understand.

Whatever we can't know or understand,
we can't even "believe in";
because:
belief
is an expression of our understanding.

With that being the case,...

If there is a higher mind who exists,
then:

Whatever it understands that is beyond our ability to understand ...
isn't anything we should spend
~any amount of time~ seeking or worrying about.
--

Science
is a philosophy and a method
for gaining knowledge and understanding of physics.

Humans use science
to help us better understand:
the universe that we are in (and a part of). 

If all humans woke up tomorrow with amnesia, 
and without any records of anything we previously believed, ...

Religion would reemerge. 
But it would be randomly very different than any of the religions we see today.
NONE of our current faith-path ideologies would come back. 

There might be a few similarities; arising from the same facets of human psychology and sociology. 
But other than that, it would be entirely different. 
 
There would NOT be another story about some religious guy in the iron age ... "dying for our sins". 

There would NOT be a duplicate (not even close) to any of the stories about Abraham, Noah, Adam, Eve, Noah, Jesus, etc..

Meanwhile, ... 

Science TOO would reemerge.
But it would come back EXACTLY THE SAME as it is now. 

This fact should impress us. 

 I also think we should be impressed with science because of all the superpowers it has given us.
 
Example:

We can talk, in real-time (instantly) to people on the other side of the world.
Not even the fictional character Superman could do that.

Meanwhile, ...

As time goes on,
science gives us more and more superpowers.

- Whereas religion merely gives us comforts; in trade for some rather costly sacrifices.

To be fair, 
I'm fine with anyone choosing to pay those costs if they feel it's worth what they get in trade;

-  but only so long as they aren't hurting anyone.

Most of us would agree that
~not seriously hurting anyone~
is among the most important criteria that ANY of us have, for deciding how to walk in this world.

With that being the case,
we should all be celebrating the contributions and empowerments given to us by scientific advancements.

Besides all the medical knowledge, tools, medicines, etc. that science has provided
(but which no "God" has provided)
... 

Science has also greatly improved our ethics.

Examples:

While we (as a species) increased our collective understanding of human psychology,
and (more specifically) child psychology, ...
we developed clarified ideas and standards about
"age of consent".

Granted,
that's not a perfect guideline.

There is NOT REALLY a Magical Birthday when everyone goes from "can't give true consent" to "can totally give true consent".

Hell, I've known some 40-year-olds who lack such maturity. 

But it's a fair temporary guideline until science enables us to develop something more specific to individuals.

Religious faith narratives won't be able to do that.

Bible writers didn't take a modern stand on those issues, because they were ignorant of the science.

 - Thus,
 50yo men were still taking 12yo brides.

Girls/women were still seen as barely more than sexual livestock; put on this Earth to serve the interests of men.

SCIENCE was instrumental in humanity's collective ~ growth out of~ those archaic social paradigms. 

With science, we were also able to prove that non-white people have all the same potential (intelligence, character, etc) as white people.

The same is true for proving that females are just as capable as warriors and leaders.

Science ~put to rest~ such controversies, for the majority of people.

As a result, science helps humanity progress toward a more equitable and capable world.

We could not have made it this far without it. 

Cultural values and religious "proverbs" aren't enough. 

We can't tend to people's psychological needs
nor empower their true potential,  
if we can't recognize what those actually are. 

--
--

Now, anyone can reject the science.

Anyone can say "Science keeps changing its mind".

But let's realize:
 
There are many issues scientists have settled; very permanently. 

For example, they will NEVER go back to saying it's perfectly fine to add LEAD to children's toys and drinking water. 

Granted,
many issues are not fully resolved. 

For those matters, ... 
It's a GOOD thing that science keeps changing positions;
per greater-and-greater understandings.

This is something that religions should be emulating; not disparaging.

This is what it means to grow.

If scientists did NOT ever change their minds,
that would be a great reason to stop trusting science. 

This is one of the objections I have to religious "faith"; 
the same as loyalty to ANY narrative.




Someone may also question the integrity and agendas of scientists.

Sometimes scientists are dishonest.

But that's why we need to have (and DO have) globally independent labs and a rigorous ~peer review~ process. 

Blatant lies and earnest mistakes 
can-and-will be discovered and corrected. 

And yet, perhaps scientists (through the lens of conservativism) also seem a bit too "woke".

However, ...

I've noticed that when people shun science to that degree,
it's generally because the person wants to protect their own biases.

#ScienceBeDamned.

That way, the person can go back to being
a sexist-in-denial,
or racist-in-denial.

Someone also may want to protect their theories about economics.

They may want to score imaginary points for their political tribe.


They may wish to rationalize their own lack of empathy when it comes to the political policies they wish to see implemented. 



Or perhaps they want to protect their religious narrative.

So they say "The science can't be trusted". 

And to be fair, ...

The science could (in most cases) "possibly be wrong". 

[Note; We do have a fair equivalent to "100% certainty" about SOME/few things in science.

Nothing will ever be a true 100%.
But there are some findings about physics that will absolutely not change in the future;
- unless reality itself changes, or unless physics is discovered to be an illusion of some sort]

And yet, 
the accuracy or trustworthiness of science,
 when it comes to
 ~recommending changes to our behaviors~
are often NOT something we need confidence in.

For example:

Some people say that Global Climate Change is either:
a.) a hoax
b.) accidentally wrong
c.) lacking necessary data,
or
d.) not caused by humans.

I happen to think it's legit.
I have many reasons to think so.

But that shouldn't matter, because:

EVEN IF humans are NOT causing Global Climate Change, ...

The changes (in our behaviors) scientists are saying we should make in order to PREVENT it from getting a lot worse ...

would make everyone's land, air, and water cleaner; regardless.

That, in turn, would greatly reduce how many kids (and adults) die from asthma and other breathing condition every year.

It would also make everyone else live healthier and longer too.

So then it should not matter if we are causing Global Climate Change.

And it should not matter if we can trust that science.

The changes they want us to make ... are changes we should make regardless.

I find that's often the case.

Even if scientists are wrong about ~a thing~, ...

The changes they want us to make
(in most cases) are common-sense changes we should be making (right now) regardless.
---

We don't really need many certainties when it comes to science. 

We should, instead, look to science as an adventure in PROBABILITIES. 

By now, science has been developed and refined to so such an extent ... 

They have gotten really really good at knowing when to qualify their results with "seems to" or "suggests" "or gives us cause to investigate further" 
vs 
"independently verified" and "confident". 

For example:

If scientists reach an overwhelming consensus after years of study, among several independent labs, with thousands of medical patients, ...

that a specific drug can cause birth defects, ...

it would just be plain old stupid for a pregnant woman to keep taking that;
- even if a tiny minority of qualified scientists say they think it's probably safe.

"Scientists could be wrong". 

But they are probably right.

And if the risks of ignoring them are greater than the risks of believing them, ..
then (in that case):

Both MATH (probabilities vs risks) 
and
basic human ethics
says we should trust them. 

Better safe than sorry; 
especially when it's someone else's well-being
that we ought not to be gambling with.