>When I talk about "science" I'm talking about the scientific method, which I think is good.

Science is composed of a lot more than that.

> Since I like the scientific method, I am ok with the scientific method becoming the dominant motivator for human decision-making. If that was the case, we could have resolved climate change sooner and put more money into renewables.

Could have.

Does science teach its followers to have curiosity about whether their predictions of the future, or counterfactual reality, are actually true?

>Soo yeah... I would prefer the scientific method to be the main framework people think in, not sure what you're point is.

Part of my point is that like religious people, people who have been ideologically captured by science are also unable to distinguish between their beliefs, facts, and the unknown.

As proof, I offer your comment.