We can question the credibility and competence of the researchers who perform the studies and experiments, or the sources that report about them, which is why other researchers carefully critique those studies and repeat those experiments.
We can even question what actions society should take as a consequence of new knowledge obtained by science.
But math, logic, reason, empirical evidence, and other formal tools of science, themselves are not questioned via the scientific method.
The validity of the scientific method itself can be questioned, of course, but such questioning is not science, it's philosophy.
@Pat you could say "trust the scientists" but not "trust the science". Science is based on evidence not trust or faith but scientists are human. Too many people talk about science like it's some kind of being or god but it's just people
"Trust" has multiple meanings. When used in the sense of relying on science, it means, "to place an assured reliance on the ability or truth of something".
When used about people it could also mean "to hope", or "to accept on faith".
"Trust the science" means that the scientific method can be relied upon for certainty. (The method is certain, not necessarily its execution.)
@Pat Trust science but not necessarily the scientists then lol
> "Trust science but not necessarily the scientists then..."
Exactly! That's why we have peer review and the experiments are repeated by others to verify their validity.
Also, don't trust the news source that you get a particular report from. Go track down the original published papers on the studies that were written by the scientists themselves, then analyse them carefully, read what other scientists have said about them, and read about other similar studies and experiments.
Then maybe you will have more "trust" in science.
