> Science is empiricism. That is it. It is the idea that a theory about how the world works must be put to the test through experimentation. And it is also the idea that all theories are forever subject to falsification. There is no space for arguments form authority, personal preferences about how nature should work nor dogma.
Sounds great to me, can't think of a better way to go about learning things well enough that we can say we know them to an extent.
> But this is exactly how many contemporary "defenders of science" are treating science: as an authoritative source that must be trusted.
If not results from scientific methods, then what's the alternative that should be trusted? The part that's forgotten is that the body of scientific knowledge is constantly updated. They're merely the best answers we have at the moment, not final ones.