Many of the greatest minds in science turned to theology

Generally speaking, in the eyes of most scientists, there is no single science. Because scientific practice is often based on people using different scientific methods to make final decisions.

So that leaves us with the question: if scientists are just ordinary workers, like plumbers, nurses or electricians, if established scientific theories are fallible and easily changed, then why should we trust science? What is the basis for believing in science?

In fact, there is no single answer to this question, which can be interpreted in two aspects:

First, the continuing engagement of science with the world

The first point is crucial, but often overlooked. Natural scientists study nature and social scientists study the social world. Consider this: Why should we trust plumbers? The electrician? A dentist or a nurse? I guess the simplest answer is that we trust a plumber to help us with the plumbing. Generally speaking, they are allowed to work after receiving some specialized technical training and obtaining a license to work as a plumber.

However, we don't trust plumbers to help us with facials, let alone nurses to help us with plumbing. Of course, plumbers can make mistakes, but this is usually the domain of expertise, and we are more likely to trust professionals to do what they are good at than ourselves. Without this kind of trust in professionals, human society would probably come to a standstill. Similarly, scientists are professionals who study the world. So, in the pure sense that we should expect professionals to do professional things, we are right to trust scientists, and we should trust science even more.

No doubt scientists, like plumbers, can make mistakes, but consider that one of the biggest reasons the plumbing industry exists is that we need them to work for us and help us solve our problems with their expertise. And when we look at scientists and science, we find a lot of tools and methods that provide the foundation for continuous innovation, enabling people to do what they want to do.

In our modern society, scientists are considered experts on the world. By this definition, scientists should produce an independent body of scientific knowledge by synthesizing their work experience and the theoretical models they develop through their contact with nature and human society.

As we emphasize for other job roles, scientists need to explain not only what they know, but how they know it. Expertise, as a concept, comes with inherent notions of specialization, thus implicitly limiting expertise, which reminds us why it is important for scientists to exercise restraint in areas where expertise is lacking.

Second, the social character of science

However, relying on empirical evidence alone is not enough to understand the basis of scientific conclusions and to establish trust in science. We must also recognize the social characteristics of science and its role in social practice.

It is important to note that scientists who have been misled by social trends and bad habits often assume that "science" is based on the theoretical results of social practice to ensure that the research process is rigorous enough to produce reliable results.

To sum up, there is no single solution to all problems in the world, and neither is science. If we can understand the great value of the relationship between science and society in the process of continuous contact, and the importance of science itself to the development of society, the question of whether we should choose to believe in science will be solved, don't you think?