Do you wholeheartedly trust science?

Whether it's the best and most reliable method is debatable, actually, I'd pretty confidently say it's not (mathematics is always true if its premises are true, and the premises rely on less inductions than science) but it's certainly the most popular method of scholarly coming to conclusions.

And yeah, definitely agree with you second statement, except maybe more frequently than here & there.

@Winterwanderer: Math has relatively limited applications compared to all the fields of scientific research

But now you're answering a different question, before you said "it's still the best and most reliable method of getting to the truth of matters", no, math is - though science [i]is[/i] often better than math at finding practical applications for the world, the different applications can have unforeseen consequences as their objects are not wholly understood. Mathematics exists in nearly every field of scientific research though, and it is very practical, in fact, it is very useful in very many different ways and, if conducted correctly, is always accurate and will help to solve and understand many different problems.

Mathematics is not just numbers and geometry, but, like science, it is an entire process of thinking and conducting, it's different from science and not opposed, it only appears limited when you only compare certain aspects of it, math is very diverse as science is, just in a different way.

By process of elimination sometimes? Or by using Deduction.

Amen

First of all, religion and science are not extremes of one another, and no, you could be skeptical of conclusions made, even of people with 'academic authority'.

Certain things in science are 'more likely' true as they been observed multiple times to appear a certain way, even the fundamentals of science cannot be claimed absolutely, though they can maybe be claimed with more confidence, still not fixed, or known, or 'true'.

Science has often shifted paradigmatically when the fundamentals have been seen to be incorrect and insufficient, now we have a different paradigm that could quite possibly be wrong as previous examples.

I don't think we really [i]need[/i] certainty to conduct science, I don't think that's what it's about, science is about speculation of the truth, not necessarily the truth; I think that's how science should be treated and that's how people should view science - as a method of speculating the truth/nature of this world & its laws.

Some speculations are more validated and strong than others, but even strong and validated speculations can be wrong.

Sorry, I don't speak Bangla.

Nice, very circular.

@Winterwanderer Thanks. I do so love circles.

But they don't exist in the real world, only their idea.