Science is not a belief.

There is a name for belief in science beyond what it actually is.

Scientism.

Personally the more prevalent belief is more a from of techno fetishism.

The faith that somehow those clever boffins that we barely bother funding will come up with technological solutions to all of our problems.

If you take on science as a belief, you aren't really a scientist.

Science is not a belief, nor is it a belief system. It is how things work; how they are. It is where the evidence points to the best man has been able to figure out for the past couple of thousand years. It is how things are as best as we can reckon.

Generally speaking, I don’t actually view science as a belief or even a system of belief. My intention relating it to and even calling it a belief is simply because there are a large number of people that seem to think calling science a belief vindicates their religious or spiritual point of view or argument in some way. At best, my statement about science and belief is an apologetic way of trying to say STFU to those trying to equate science and its processes to a belief in religion or spirituality.

Understanding our world needs an objective means for expressing subjective experiences we each have when we leverage the scientific process. This is precisely why we utilize things like peer review, rigor, and repeatability in experimentation.

Science isn’t about a singular, coherent truth (bear with me)... it’s about building models and fitting those models to what we observe in nature; what we talk about as truth is a byproduct when nature and the model exist in harmony. Science affords us an opportunity to say this is my idea of the way nature works, my hypothesis. You then build a model and take measurements through experimentation. After consulting the data you acquired via experiment to verify that the model does indeed fit the data, congratulations on your new budding theory. You keep verifying the model over and over again, and not just you... your fellow scientists the world over. If ever the data doesn’t fit your model, you either find the hiccup in your model and fix it to fit the data or you ditch the model entirely. That simple.

So to some extent, science is a belief system, but it isn’t structured like and doesn’t offer the same standards as religious or spiritual belief; this is my whole point. It’s different... significantly, and we [I] probably shouldn’t ever group science, religion, and spirituality together as “belief structures”. It’s strictly intended to illustrate why a “belief” in science is not the same as a belief in religion or spirituality... something all of us here are aware of because science isn’t a belief.

Science, or Natural Philosophy as I prefer to call it, is not a belief - it is a method. A system for explaining things.

"However, I can show you mathematically and physically why it’s true for the plane flying".

Go on then.

A Belief or system of Belief requires 2 main elements, a) Faith, and, b) Faith WITHOUT any empirical/definable/falsifiable evidence what-so-ever.
Where as Sciences require Evidence, Experimentation, Testing, Discussion, Debating, Re-Testing, Re-Examining and re-debating UNTIL either PROVEN Correct or incorrect. Ergo Science is NOT a religion since it demands and requires the production of those things religions cannot exhibit.

There is no faith or belief involved in science. I agree with most of the comments so far.

Science is not a belief. It's the only tried and true method ever found to get to what really works. Without science, we wouldn't be talking about it, because there would be no satellites, or internet. We wouldn't have modern medicine, computers or space travel. My understanding of a belief is a thought that maybe Bigfoot exists. You have no evidence, you just feel it in your heart, or maybe you were brought up to believe Bigfoot exists.

I think that the root of your comment is a belief in our current existence and that you're simply using science as an extension of that. All of the great philosophers have raised questions about existence, so extending this to science and what we think is true is no great leap.

There is definitely a bit a time required for learning bits and pieces of what others have brought to light through various studies and theories. There is definitely the belief that there is always more to learn, which unfortunately gets turned on its head occasionally like MMR vaccine causes Autism along with various others things like measles (it doesn't) and other 12000 tests to disprove a fraudulent study in the 1990s on 12 boys.
That is an almost religious trust of authority that even something disproven and admitted by conductor still holds weight in some peoples minds.

What? Nevermind! They answered for me...love you man.

Remember that science is just not a list of natural facts, it is also the process of theory, testing, and proof or disproof, whatever the case is. None of this applies to the concept of belief.

Not being a scientist myself and taking for granted that scientists are more intelligent than me (generally) I take 'on board" (trust) that what they tell me about the Universe around me is factual.

You are absolutely right! There are valid and tested standards for judging the accuracy of scientific beliefs, but NO standards for judging the validity and accuracy of ANY religious beliefs.