How to Answer the Question "Do You Trust Science?"

Nowadays a person may try to get someone to "fall into the line" or conform by asking him, "Do you trust science?" A conversation may go like this:

John: Blah blah blah blah blah you're just some molecules bouncing around in a body blah blah blah blah blah blah you're just electricity firing around in a brain blah blah blah blah blah blah blah our species arose merely because of lucky random mutations blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Jane: I don't think so. 

John: But you trust science, don't you?

Jane: Uh, well...I guess so. 

John: Then you should agree with what I said!

Jane's answer to the "do you trust science" question was not a good answer. That question should be answered with an answer longer than a simple "yes" or "no."

What is meant by the word "science"? You get very different definitions when you look for the definition of that word in major dictionaries or other leading sources:

• The Merriam Webster dictionary defines science primarily as "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method."  It also offers a definition of "a particular area of scientific study." 
• The Cambridge Dictionary defines science primarily as "(knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behavior of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities." Note that there is a very big difference between this definition and the Merriam Webster definition. The Merriam Webster definition spoke as if science meant only "knowledge" (making it sound like science is beyond question), but the Cambridge Dictionary definition says that science is also "theories" (things that may reasonably be questioned). Also the Cambridge Dictionary gives this secondary definition of "science": "the facts and opinions that are provided by scientists who have studied a particular subject or situation." Now we have a definition of something much different from pure knowledge. We may very reasonably be entitled to distrust opinions of scientists that are not facts or knowledge. 
• Dictionary.com defines science primarily as "the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms." This is an "activity" definition of science very different from the "knowledge" definition of science given by the Merriam Webster dictionary.  This "activity" definition of science is no fluke. Other major sources have defined "science" in such a way, describing it not as knowledge but as the process of attempting to gather knowledge by systematic efforts based on observations and experiments. Clearly we may be entitled to doubt "science" if it is defined in such a way.  Human beings are prone to error, particularly when they become members of belief communities where belief traditions arise; and scientists are members of such belief communities. As a wise old saying stated, "Error circles the globe while truth is still putting on its boots." Or as Murphy put, "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong."
• Like dictionary.com, the American Heritage Dictionary (a leading American dictionary) gives as its primary definition of science an "activity" definition rather than a "body of knowledge" definition. It gives as its primary definition of science this definition: "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." It is notable that under this definition doing things such as ESP tests and doing tests with psychic mediums are just as much "science" as digging up fossils or observing with a telescope. It is also notable that by using the term "theoretical explanation" this definition reminds us of how scientist explanations are largely speculative or debatable. 

What is a good description of "science" as it now exists? A good literature-centered description might be this: science is a mixture of very important truths and also dubious claims and bad errors, being advanced by economically and ideologically motivated individuals who tend to be members of conformist belief communities that keep repeating a mixture of facts, speculation, triumphal legends and belief traditions. A good activity-centered description of science might be this: the process of attempting to establish truth or understand reality by a systematic use of experiments, observations or theorizing, a process that is very difficult to do right, and very easy to do wrong. 

Do you think I am exaggerating how ideological today's scientists tend to be? I recently got out from my local library seven books by mainstream scientists and doctors, which I read. (Over the past 13 years I have spent gigantic amounts of time reading, quoting and analyzing the writings of those who largely teach the exact opposite of what I believe, and this is proven by my extremely abundant links to their papers, articles and books, on this blog and another blog of mine.  Conversely, most mainstream scientists seem to spend no time studying works of those who criticize their dogmas and no time studying the works of those who report spooky things inconsistent with such dogmas.)  One of those books I got out from the library was by an evolutionary biologist who on his very first page told us that he would be teaching "the foundation of a worldview"; and we later learn in the book how this worldview has all kinds of metaphysical presumptions and atheist dogmas. Such "worldview warrior" scientists often are candid about how shaping and controlling your worldview is a key item of their agenda. 

In another of the seven books I got out from the library a biologist mentioned one little thing and then said "And that's basically all there is to biochemistry."  Eager to make biological life look very simple for the sake of selling an ideology, the biologist made the most absurd misstatement, rather like someone mentioning one type of thing and then saying, "And that's all there is to history."  Biochemistry actually has oceans and oceans of the deepest complexities beyond the one thing that the biologist had mentioned.  On another page, the same biologist tried to pretend as if anatomy does not even exist, by making this blundering statement: "My body is some 10 trillion cells. Period." No, actually, bodies have things larger than cells, such as tissues, organs, organ systems and useful appendages such as the hands I am using to write this post.  

In a previous trip to the same library, I took out a very bad book ("Until the End of Time") by physicist Brian Greene in which he stated on page 125 the enormous falsehood that "you are a swarm of interacting particles." Human bodies actually have many levels of enormous organization that make them the exact opposite of "a swarm of interacting particles," a phrase suitable for describing a tornado or a Martian dust storm. Greene makes an equally false statement on page 237. Such "speak the exact opposite of the truth" falsehoods by Greene are ideologically motivated.  Guys like Greene don't want you to understand the sky-high levels of organization in your body, because the better you understand that, the less likely you will be to believe in the dogma of unguided human origins. For decades Greene has peddled the groundless scientist fantasy that is string theory. 

The visual below illustrates what a "hit and miss" affair science is:

So what is a good answer to give when asked, "Do you trust science?" It is not a one-word answer of "yes" or "no."  A good answer might be something like this: 

I trust that large portion of science which consists of well-observed things, and facts established by well-replicated "best practices" experiments using large study groups. I largely distrust the large portion of science which consists of shaky dogmas, belief traditions of scientist communities, and experimental work involving poor methods and badly designed experiments guilty of procedural sins such as the use of way-too-small study groups. I am also very concerned about the very high level of clickbait, hype and exaggeration in today's online science literature, where we very often read groundless boasts and the repetition of socially constructed triumphal legends. 

Another good answer might be something like this:

I trust Science with a capital "S," defined as facts established by observations, well-designed experiments and systematic inquiry. I largely distrust much of science with a small "s," defined as the attempt to establish knowledge by observations, experiments and theorizing.  The reason I largely distrust much of that is because humans are very erring creatures who seem to do things wrong as commonly as they do things right, particularly when they try to do grand things that are very hard to do.  There are a vast number of ways to do things wrong when you try to do science, and a far fewer number of ways to do things right.