> Science is not a faith based system False. If you did not do the study/experiment yourself, you are putting your faith in scientists that did. This is philos

> Science is not a faith based system False. If you did not do the study/experiment yourself, you are putting your faith in scientists that did. This is philosophically equivalent to someone putting their faith in, say a monk, or a pastor. If you go one level deeper, the monk might say, 'do X penance for Y years to verify Z claim', then it's up to you whether you want to follow that route or not. Until then, his claim is not unfalsifiable, like many skeptics claim. Even for mundane day-to-day claims, 'science', as commonly understood, falls short. e.g. Science cannot prove to me that a mango tastes sweet, without putting the condition that I must taste it. The only 'proof' it can provide is 'Taste it and see for yourself'. If I say, 'I will only taste it AFTER you prove it is sweet', then nothing will happen. Because Taste is subjective. Yet, everyone, 'miraculously' is able to come to a consensus. There are truths that are individually/subjectively verifiable, but collectively/objectively unverifiable. The denigration of the former type of truths is something armchair scientists must avoid. Real scientists never denigrate them.