>> For example they often have attended college and believe in science.
> One doesn't believe in science. One uses science as a tool to test hypotheses, using real world evidence to understand reality and truth.
The first quote is a shorthand. The second quote is accurate, technically, except that perhaps the author is misunderstanding the first quote. When many people write "person P believes in science", you can accurately translate that to "person P sees the value in science as a tool for truth-seeking."
I fully appreciated the intended connotation. I simply chose to point out, perhaps with some pedantry, that one does not believe in science. Such looseness in verbiage opens up the bad faith gish gallopers that have become MAGA's "thought" leaders.
Yes, the principles of the universe that science uncovers don't require anyone to believe in them.
But the institutions of science are built on trust and faith. Science is more or less just generations of individuals who have had faith that the spirit of scientific inquiry is how we learn about the universe and about the nature of human existence
No, the institution of science is built on repeatability and patsimony. I'm not sure why you want to put science into a fallible know-nothing epistemological foundation, but I suspect the effort will be futile.
> One doesn't believe in science. One uses science as a tool to test hypotheses, using real world evidence to understand reality and truth.
The first quote is a shorthand. The second quote is accurate, technically, except that perhaps the author is misunderstanding the first quote. When many people write "person P believes in science", you can accurately translate that to "person P sees the value in science as a tool for truth-seeking."