We've also been presented with the sole intermediaries between the "science" and ourselves. If we dared to question anything, we were asked if we were an expert instead of the experts explaining why we were wrong.

It's very comparable to how the Church and clergy were the sole intermediary between God and man when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to a door, which began a movement that helped develop the freedom of speech.

> There is nothing to "believe in" in science anyway, because it's an exposer of non-truth.

Trusting that the methodology leads to truth is the belief part of science. Someone has to frame "the truth" as some functional model and that gives them immense power to influence, just like any clergy.

Exactly. Case in point: "Science Is Real"

I roll my eyes each time I see this. How exactly is a process real?

Even if this phrase were to mean "the results of science should be weighted more than opinions" it still purports that science is definite which leads people to believe things and never change their minds -- which is the opposite of science.