What you are touching upon, imo, is the idea that science is NOT actually some independent, objective means of understanding the world, in contrast to religious

What you are touching upon, imo, is the idea that science is NOT actually some independent, objective means of understanding the world, in contrast to religious thinking. Whereas the reality is that science is actually a belief based system, that cloaks itself in a (thin) veneer of objectivity. The scientific method is venerated but not applied personally. So, the reality is that adherents accept a reality intermediated for them by priests/scientists (and journals, trusted sources). Adherents talk about truth/reality while having little or no personal experience of the matter at hand. It is group behaviour, evidence is paid lip service to but there is very little critical thought or assessment of said 'evidence' by any individual adherents. When the scientific authorities make a pronouncement, this is simply accepted. Religion. Believers.