Think of it like this I trust science because? Science is a completely trustworthy source for gaining knowledge.
Well there to at least one belief is involved and Knowledge itself is a epistemic property of belief.
And then the problem is people view scientists who are seeking grant money or who push their research findings with extra suspicion, the researchers found. Many Americans view such characters as downright untrustworthy.The lesson for all scientists, the researchers say, is:”Just like other communication, science communication needs to continue to convey warmth and trustworthiness, along with competence and expertise.” In other words, convincing others of the importance of what you’re working on depends not only on being smart and competent, but also on connecting and resonating with people.
We’ve actually known that for years. As the study authors write, “Long ago, Aristotle knew that communication is not just about logic and knowledge, but also about emotions and values.” The challenge, it seems, is actually putting that knowledge into practice.
it is a fact because of the quality of the evidence supporting it.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: If You Don’t Believe in Science, ‘Just Move Back to the Cave’
What makes some believed Truth actually True?
To me truth is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is is evidence. Therefore, the rational imperative on us is to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from a credible source as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”.
Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge, validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”.
There is much philosophical debate about knowledge. However, for the sake of most arguments, I’m fine working from the definition of “justified true beliefs”. But I always do so tentatively as problems could come up (the Gettier problem, etc.).
Therefore, I follow the standard in philosophy Justified True Beliefs = knowledge and when such knowledge reaches a high or the highest epistemic standard it can be dubbed epistemically certain.
To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.
Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.
For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.
The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.
For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.
The “ethics of belief” refers to a cluster of questions at the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central question in the debate is whether there are norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Is it ever or always morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence? Is it ever or always morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of it? Is it ever or always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief? Are there some ways of obtaining evidence that are themselves immoral or imprudent?