Science is a means of approaching beliefs. Science is not the philosophical position that we should be agnostic about the existence of gravity or magnitude of g

Science is a means of approaching beliefs. Science is not the philosophical position that we should be agnostic about the existence of gravity or magnitude of gravitational forces. Unlike other means of reaching beliefs, science supposes there is little reason to hold a belief that cannot be supported by induction from experimental data, and that a correctly set up experiment can falsify previously held beliefs and require the theory to be updated. A corollary of this is that stuff generally isn't to be believed simply because a very old book and much revered book says so (which is bad news for Aristotle's speculation as well as monotheism, but somewhat better news for Newton's laws because there are practical working applications of them). But when it comes to anthropogenic climate change or vaccine efficacy the evidence very much is there - people can either believe it is probably true or demonstrate their superior understanding of why evidence actually doesn't support the hypothesis (ideally by counter example, but pointing out confounding factors that have been missed is a start). Either approach is consistent with science, though only the latter will further scientific knowledge. An approach to formulating beliefs which isn't consistent with science is the prior that if scientists virtually all agree on the evidence base for something, the contrarian theory is probably right.