I see your point.

The thing about science is that it’s based upon evidence. You don’t choose the evidence to suit your pet theory like scholasticism.

I am a scientist. I certainly don't think many (if any) answers lie in religion. I just cannot imagine ever being satisfied with what I or we know. Evidence needs scrutiny. It can be shocking what different conclusions can be drawn from one data set, depending on how it is presented or analyzed.

The difference is, We CAN. The data is there. The research will at some point be published. We can read it. We can know how the test was set up, what data set was used, whether or not there was a big enough test group, whether or not the controls were adequate.

Scientific literacy, which is as easy to learn as any other topic, teaches us how to read and understand these reports. Most of what anyone says about a scientific ideal can be quickly disproved, or at least shown that the data isn't broad enough.

Eggs are good for us, then they're bad for us, then they're "okay." This perplexes the media who just wants a story, and frustrates the non-scientific person. But anyone can pick up those studies and realize that it's very hard to control for things like cholesterol or blood pressure. Genetics makes these things difficult. They can see that the control groups weren't big enough, or that they weren't blended enough...

Science works because it's observable. No, I will never understand everything about it, but the preponderance of scientists, just like the preponderance of evidence helps take the guesswork out of much of this.

Whereas religion... offers none of that.

I understand the nature of proof more than most, but I’m also not a polymath like Leibniz.

@TheMiddleWay

I'm not sure I would call it the Bandwagon fallacy... since if something true, it's true on its own terms, and it doesn't matter how many people accept, or don't accept the conclusions. In fact, it seems that our society doesn't accept what science says at all. If that were the case, we wouldn't have entire television channels dedicated to ghosts and the paranormal. We wouldn't have psychics and seers, or conspiracy theories. I think even religion would be greatly diminished if we were to take science more seriously.

I agree with you that we tend to follow blindly or at least without giving much thought to ideas that we like, and are quick to dismiss what we don't like. It's also true that most of us get our "news" from the "news..." meaning that it's wrong most of the time. Whereas if we learned how to understand how these studies were done, we'd be much better off.

You say, "I have. For 15 years I've taught physics and let me tell it it's so tough..."

I've read a lot of books, like Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Anthony Aguirre, Michio Kaku... and others, and one thing I can say is, they're really smart... I'm pretty sure I don't understand a damn thing I'm reading, sort of like a monkey reading Shakespeare.

So yes, physics, mathematics, biology, and the deeper issues of science are complicated. But scientific method is pretty straight forward, and if it were taught in schools would greatly enhance our understanding at least of how science works. That's what I mean when I say scientific literacy.

Science is constantly asking questions. That is something religious people don't go along with.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, you are right, of course, because they have no answers. But for that reason they tend also to discourage the asking of questions.

TheMiddleWay: Yah, NO! Truth is truth on its own terms, and to assume that because a lot of people either believe... or "don't" believe, constitutes the "bandwagon" fallacy is, in itself another logical fallacy... Confusion of Correlation and Causation.

Like Counterpont on old 60 minutes or CNN had a show-can't remember the name-but Bill Press would go up against Tucker Carlson. Pat Buchanan vsliberals-Talkback-what was it called?

Are you sure you're not talking about Religulous? That's the only Bill Maher documentary I'm aware of.