The less common one is the one you outline immediately after denying its existence: it's about asking questions and trying to establish evidence-based models to make predictions and testing/validating the assumptions in those models. It's probably more accurate to call this belief system empiricism.
The more common one is a deferral to expert authority, where experts are designated by certain established scientific institutions. Because many lack the time/will/ability to independently verify claims made by authoritative figures, this deferral requires substantial trust in these institutions to come up with good answers.
This second belief system is what most people mean when they label themselves or others as pro- or anti-science. Paradoxically, even though the authoritative institutions ostensibly produce information empirically, expressing skepticism and asking questions is often perceived as a lack of faith, and therefore anti-science.
I feel this is distinction without a difference. All belief systems are approaches to knowledge and information at the end of the day.
The institutional science belief system really has a lot in common with religion. In fact the instutions we now trust to train scientists and dispense scientific information largely grew out of instutions with a major focus to train clergy and dispense religious information.
Empiricism is not really in that same subcategory, but it also rests on some set of ultimately unverifiable assumptions. In fact, I'd argue that one of the central assumptions of classical empiricism, that all systems are locally deterministic, is demonstrably false. The early quantum pioneers had a hard time coming to grips with this and there are still several competing interpretations of QM. This huge shift still hasn't fully percolated to many other fields of science, which often still assume local determinism and pretend QM doesn't exist.
There are two belief systems called science.
The less common one is the one you outline immediately after denying its existence: it's about asking questions and trying to establish evidence-based models to make predictions and testing/validating the assumptions in those models. It's probably more accurate to call this belief system empiricism.
The more common one is a deferral to expert authority, where experts are designated by certain established scientific institutions. Because many lack the time/will/ability to independently verify claims made by authoritative figures, this deferral requires substantial trust in these institutions to come up with good answers.
This second belief system is what most people mean when they label themselves or others as pro- or anti-science. Paradoxically, even though the authoritative institutions ostensibly produce information empirically, expressing skepticism and asking questions is often perceived as a lack of faith, and therefore anti-science.