Is Science Something One Believes in?

I heartily recommend Robert Tracinski's "Why I Don't 'Believe' in 'Science.'" Please don't think you know what you'll find in it. Tracinski says things that are worth saying and digesting. Pertinent quote:

Some people may use “I believe in science” as vague shorthand for confidence in the ability of the scientific method to achieve valid results, or maybe for the view that the universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning.

But the way most people use it today—especially in a political context—is pretty much the opposite. They use it as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand.

There are a lot of people these days who like things that sound science-y, but have little patience for actual science. These are the kind of people who gush when Elon Musk tells them he’s going to put a million people on Mars but seem less excited about discussions of cosmic-ray shielding, or solar wind, or hydrogen escape, or all the reasons why Mars is a dead planet.

They prefer the imagery of “science” to the more prosaic reality. In my experience, “I believe in science” is just a shorthand way of admitting, “I have a degree in the humanities.”

I think Tracinski gets at something important, although I have some perhaps semantic disagreements, which any reader of this blog would already know. I don't see why reputable belief about empirical matters -- "testimony" by people in a position to know -- should not be regarded as knowledge until it is refuted or it conflicts with other things we know. Otherwise, most of us, including most scientists, couldn't be said to know that the earth is round and old or that the water is made of hydrogen and oxygen or any number of other things we reasonably can be said to know. After all, no one, not even scientists, has the time or expertise to verify every empirical proposition that they use every day. 

The "enlightened" among us thrilled when Stephen Colbert coined the term truthiness for the quality that the "unenlightened" assign to beliefs they feel and wish to be true.  Similarly we could call what Tracinski is talking about science-iness. But in this case, the "enlightened" become the practitioners of bad epistemology. Thus the tables are turned. No one is immune.