Let me use the scientists' favourite word: Falsifiability, man.* You can't prove that a claim is right, but you can prove that a claim is wrong. If a single object disobeys gravity, the theory of gravity is certainly wrong. If a person claims that the Bible is absolutely true and a single statement listed in it can be disproven, the Bible is certainly not absolutely true.

And of course, the whole idea of debating the means of establishing or verifying truths we owe to science and philosophy. A few hundred years ago we'd be just smacking one anothers heads with axes. And there'd be no debating whether your head really bleeds.

Reality only seems subjective until you end up a cancer patient. And then you'd rather prefer your doctors to be engineers treating your cancer as an objective truth, not philosophers debating whether one can objectively prove that the idea of you having cancer is better or more realistic than the idea of you not having one. "He's flatlining… but how can we be sure that there is indeed a way for us to prove that the sound going "beep beep beeeeeeeeeeeeeep" is real?"

But while you're at it, there's science and there's "popular" science. A lot of people do indeed trust science based on assumptions. People hear a lot about evolution and global warming so they assume it is true, even if they have no fucking idea how it works. But that's not the idea behind the methodology itself.

* Yes, scientists love to address one another "man".

That, or the government will finally get bored with funding scientists who do nothing practical and allocate the saved finances to improving ballistic missiles instead.

Who is improving those ballistic missiles then? (not sure if serious)

well said.

Science focuses on our journey, without any preconceived notions about our destination.

Religion claims to know our destination, which is accepted on faith alone.

Neither is really right or wrong.

No that doesn't, it's the opposite.

And infinity is a lie too.