We may be able to trust the science but can we trust the scientists? They have agendas, can be biased, worry about tenure and funding, take credit for the work of their students, and other nasty qualities. Some are no more trustworthy than religious leaders.

BeJeebus people, just read the link. I concur with the link which is why I posted it.
Just read the introduction and the first 2 bits; "The Scientific method" and "Hypothesis, Theory and Law"
This is what I was taught in the early 90's and it has not changed.

Then comment if the phrase "Trust the science" constantly banded about has been used in the correct context by many.

Science is not a belief system. It is simply the philosophy that there is no absolute truth possible, but that the best and most certain approximations to truth are made by using the most rigorous methods.

I believe science. It does not mean that I "believe in" as is implied here. Science is always testing and improving. If they find a better model they go with it. Religion stays the same. It just has different idiots trying to apologize it for you through the years.

YOU don't know the difference, I am clear.
Science is the pursuit of answers....theories are formed and tested and others try to confirm/deny/replicate results which are reported along with the protocolsmused for that particular test in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
BS is willy-nil)y blatted about everywhere.
See the difference now?

I think I know the difference between religion and science. I have a reasonably firm grasp on reality.

In my case, "trust the science" means to value actual evidence over faith (belief without any evidence)

Consider the following points...

1. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It relies on empirical evidence, experimentation, and peer review, which distinguishes it from any sort of belief system(s).

2. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis formulation, experimentation, and analysis. This process helps ensure that conclusions are based on evidence rather than personal beliefs or opinions. Grant it, there's always room for error there, but that's still vastly different than from how human-made belief systems operate.

3. Scientific knowledge is built upon through consensus among experts in the field, who rigorously review each other's work. This collaborative process (peer reviewed) helps to minimize bias and error, leading to more reliable conclusions.

4. Science is self-correcting. New evidence can lead to the revision of existing theories, which is a strength rather than a weakness. This adaptability shows that science is a dynamic process that seeks to improve our understanding of the world, which again is quite different compared to belief systems that do not require evidence in order to believe something.

5. Scientific advancements have and continue to lead to significant improvements in health, technology, and our understanding of the environment. This demonstrates the practical value of trusting scientific findings.

6. While religion often relies on faith and doctrine, science is based on evidence and inquiry. This distinction is important for understanding why many people, including atheists, may prefer science as a means of understanding the world.

By considering those points, we can have a more nuanced understanding of what "trust the science" means and why it holds value in discussions about knowledge and belief.

Soooo....NOW you trust the science. hahahaha

Even though they can trust proven science, many people don't know science, and compensate with belief. Religion is divergent and fickle since it is belief without evidence.

Science starts with a basic understanding, then tests and experiments to expand that knowledge. When something is in error, or proven false, science embraces it as a part of a more comprehensive understanding.

Religion starts with a preconceived notion, it resists evidence, science, change, or anything that can affect that notion negatively. This has been proven to be a detriment on society as well as dangerous.

A god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.

In order to know, you must have knowledge, in order to have knowledge, you must have evidence. Believers simply believe without evidence producing knowledge. A scientist, atheist or non-believer, accepts knowledge that evidence produces. Theists have NOT produced any evidence for gods.

This is why scientists, atheists or non-believers, demand proof in order to obtain knowledge and theists demand belief in order to sustain their faith.

The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, an experimentation.

It's more of awareness and consciousness thinking.
Many people really don't think much in general. Where religion are over obeiance with contradiction of their owe laws, hypocrisy. They are not really studing the spiritual of the 99% unknowns. . Nature laws may not seem all justice, yet can be understood.