Meh. The whole question/controversy is just confusion about the word belief. Statements in our minds can sometimes be accepted axiomatically--that is, what yo

Meh. The whole question/controversy is just confusion about the word belief. Statements in our minds can sometimes be accepted axiomatically--that is, what you believe to be true about reality. We need a way to comment on reality's qualities. In this sense, "belief in science" can roughly be translated as, "belief that whatever science reveals is true re: our reality." (It's actually all statistics, which means that we're only _excluding_ things from admittance into what we accept as true about our reality. Belief in science, then, is belief that only that which is detectable exists.) So the article misses the point anyway; science doesn't _grant_ proof, it grants a process for disproof and allows us to believe in what's left over.