Based on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of what science is,
and your own understanding of what the purpose of science is,
would you say you believe in science when you're provided an
opinion that's endorsed by more scientists than not?

If you wish, post and/or discuss definitions of:

1.  Science

2.  Theory

3.  Hypothesis

4.  Science Believer

5.  Science Denier

6.  Consensus

Not looking for essays or copy/paste text from Wikipedia.  Just a short definition based on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of these terms.

Shrug.  Facts are true, whether people believe in them or not.

Neither. Truth over facts

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/truth-over-facts-biden-fumbles-during-iowa-speech

Let me see, I am by degree a scientist.
What did I learn at University,
and my years as an engineer?
Question everything.
Nothing is "settled" nor is it
un-questionably true
in the science world.

You should’ve added magic in the options...

Let me see, I am by degree a scientist.
What did I learn at University,
and my years as an engineer?
Question everything.
Nothing is "settled" nor is it
un-questionably true
in the science world.

Well said.  Just because someone "said" something does not make it a "fact", just an opinion.

Liberals put much blind allegiance and faith into "statements" and claim them to be 'fact' iii in line with their political agenda.

The liberals and the fake news media have really poisoned the well of research scientists, calling many things into question.
Thank the leftist political agenda for that new doubt.

97 views.

7 votes.

Fudging a bit for multiple views per user, this is about a 7% participation rate.

Assuming you believe in statistics, of course.   

Just a thought, does political science count?
If it does I would have to change my answer to never.

Just a thought, does political science count?
If it does I would have to change my answer to never.

You decide.

Based on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of what science is,
and your own understanding of what the purpose of science is,
would you say you believe in science when you're provided an
opinion that's endorsed by more scientists than not?

If you wish, post and/or discuss definitions of:

1.  Science

2.  Theory

3.  Hypothesis

4.  Science Believer

5.  Science Denier

6.  Consensus

Not looking for essays or copy/paste text from Wikipedia.  Just a short definition based on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of these terms.

No offense but the question is poorly worded, what do you mean by believe in science? Do you mean the scientific method? Then my answer is always. But if you mean scientific consensus, or scientific results then I would say most of the time.

No offense but the question is poorly worded, what do you mean by believe in science? Do you mean the scientific method? Then my answer is always. But if you mean scientific consensus, or scientific results then I would say most of the time.

The question is not the only "hint."  Read the OP.

Based on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of what science is,
and your own understanding of what the purpose of science is,
would you say you believe in science when you're provided an
opinion that's endorsed by more scientists than not?

If you wish, post and/or discuss definitions of:

1.  Science

2.  Theory

3.  Hypothesis

4.  Science Believer

5.  Science Denier

6.  Consensus

Not looking for essays or copy/paste text from Wikipedia.  Just a short definition based on YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of these terms.

Science is useful like how my screwdriver is useful, but it would be silly to ask someone if they believe in Screwdriver.

97 views.
7 votes.
Fudging a bit for multiple views per user, this is about a 7% participation rate.
Assuming you believe in statistics, of course.   

Gotta adjust for lurkers not signed up as members or not signed in.
We gotta lotta lurkers on this forum.

Question everything.
Nothing is "settled" nor is it
un-questionably true
in the science world.

Nutshell 

Science is useful like how my screwdriver is useful, but it would be silly to ask someone if they believe in Screwdriver.

I believe in the god of Vodka and Orange Juice.   

Gotta adjust for lurkers not signed up as members or not signed in.
We gotta lotta lurkers on this forum.

Statistics Denier.   

The question is not the only "hint."  Read the OP.

That is why I gave two answers.

But to go deeper, I will say that no one has enough time in their life to become well read on all areas of science. At some level we all rely on science summarized and presented to us. And if there is conflict in the data I tend to give the side with more studies/tests or more experts more weight. This doesn't always give me the correct position on something but seems to do it most of the time.

That is why I gave two answers.

But to go deeper, I will say that no one has enough time in their life to become well read on all areas of science. At some level we all rely on science summarized and presented to us. And if there is conflict in the data I tend to give the side with more studies/tests or more experts more weight. This doesn't always give me the correct position on something but seems to do it most of the time.

Are you conflating "believe in" with "trust"?

I'm using believe in the context of "faith".  That you have faith that the people who claim the professional designation of "scientist" know more than you, and you defer to their authority without skepticism in matters of fact-finding.  Sounds like that's where you are on the scale.

If a scientist tells you we have 12 years to take drastic action before it's too late to prevent a climate change apocalypse, do you believe that '98% of scientists', or do you withhold your trust of that conclusion until the science is independently reviewed and the specifics on how they arrived at that prediction are made pubic?

And if there is conflict in the data I tend to give the side with more studies/tests or more experts more weight.

I tend to think the side with more money paid for their results

Are you conflating "believe in" with "trust"?

I'm using believe in the context of "faith".  That you have faith that the people who claim the professional designation of "scientist" know more than you, and you defer to their authority without skepticism in matters of fact-finding.  Sounds like that's where you are on the scale.

If a scientist tells you we have 12 years to take drastic action before it's too late to prevent a climate change apocalypse, do you believe that '98% of scientists', or do you withhold your trust of that conclusion until the science is independently reviewed and the specifics on how they arrived at that prediction are made pubic?

Lets use coffee as an example because there seems to be a lot of flip flopping on that one. Some studies report health benefits while others negative health consequences. Picking the studies that say coffee is good because I like coffee would obviously not be scientific so I could do one of two things:
1. Dive deep into the science and try to take a well informed stance
2. Skim through the basics of the reports and make a quicker but less informed stance.

Realistically most people choose #2 for most things because #1 simply isn't feasible plus it is too slow in certain situations. So for coffee I could look for something like the number of studies that say good vs number that say bad and choose the one with more studies. Or I might take a stance based on polls of scientists.

I tend to think the side with more money paid for their results

Very possible. I try to incorporate that into my second wave of thinking on a subject. Who would have something to gain/lose? Who would stand to lose/gain more? How do I weigh that against the reported data/results?