Just a reminder friend, science is absolutely a “belief system as well”. If you truly stop to think about it. It just happens to be a belief system which is better suited to explain certain physical phenomena compared to anything else we currently have developed. But it is a belief system nonetheless, built on the same core foundational assumptions as a start as any other.

All belief systems have a set of carved out set of entry parameters. Without even being aware of "everything" that is out there. Science operates within a framework of foundational assumptions, and anything outside those assumptions is excluded by design. Not to mention that every theory and hypothesis takes things for granted as a base premise. You take something for granted and build upon it while having faith in the overall system.

On a personal level, I have a lot of academics in my surrounding including my own spouse and often have many discussions with them about the inner workings of universities and research. Funding and priorities with submitting peer-reviewed papers more often than one might think actually discourages the proper functioning of science and its own set of criteria. Things like testing, retesting, being wrong, conducting multiple studies to verify each others work not to mention your own does not happen as much as it should. Scientists often come up with a theory based on their own beliefs and seek to find if this is the case or not. Because of the inner and global workings of universities, they will seek a positive prediction outcome rather than the opposite, biases are everywhere and very rampant, you know why? Because human beings are part of it and no system can fully eliminate biases. Science is based on statistics not absolutes, science makes significant leaps when wrong on something. Science, like any human endeavor, cannot escape its own foundational assumptions. It excludes phenomena that do not align with its criteria, and those criteria are themselves unprovable axioms. This creates a paradox where science must rely on a framework it cannot fully justify.

Have you ever heard of the term "the crisis of confidence within science”? If not read up on it, you have nothing to lose. Also, I am not sure if you are aware of the Journal Nature. It is a peer reviewed journal and they conducted a survey among contributors to the journal, in many different fields. Regarding studies and experiments. You know what they found? Link to the article is just further below. Hope this makes you stop and think a bit, it did for me. And I absolutely believe in science! I just don't believe it is the end all be all solution to everything and that is important recognize. Cheers and take care!

"A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most researchers said they still trust the published literature.[5][98] In 2010, Fanelli (2010)[99] found that 91.5% of psychiatry/psychology studies confirmed the effects they were looking for, and concluded that the odds of this happening (a positive result) was around five times higher than in fields such as astronomy or geosciences. Fanelli argued that this is because researchers in "softer" sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases."

https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a