What is the difference between 'skeptical of science' and 'anti-science'?

I am a 14 year old who is interested in science, skeptical of science, and not anti-science. Science is the best way we have to find truth and gain understanding of the universe along with our experiences from life. <br><br>One can be skeptical of science and be pro-science, one can be pro-science and not be skeptical of science. Both are fine as long as you do not end up being anti-science.<br><br>Why do we have to be skeptical of science? Science is done by humans. Humans can be wrong and make mistakes. Then how do we trust science? Should we always trust science blindly? "Science" is not a single entity, it is made of human beings. There can be errors in science because humans can be wrong. Those errors and mistakes can be pointed out by humans themselves. By scepticism, we improve science. We would not have the science of today if people were satisfied with the knowledge that was available. It is all because of their curiosity to know more that brought us to the current stage. <br><br>I cannot imagine how the world would have been if we did not have the curiosity and skepticism in humans. That curiosity and skepticism are what made us great as a race at the end of the day. I am a big supporter of not blindly following the results of science. We should question them and question them rigorously. We should continue to question everything. Always remember that science is done by humans and humans can be wrong. If they are wrong, we should point it out. It is through rigorous questioning and skepticism that science improves and grows better.<br><br>You can be skeptical of anything in science and be pro-science. You cannot accept science blindly. We should question everything about science and not blindly follow it. It is through that rigorous questioning and scepticism that science glows better. <br><br>So what I am trying to explain is that scepticism is good for science. It is very important for science. We do it to improve science, we do it because we love science, but if you close your eyes and ears and blindly follow science, then you are anti-scientific.<br><br>But, by scepticism, we do not raise our voices against science. We should continue to rigorously question science. We should always be sceptical of science. But why should we be sceptical of science? We cannot blindly follow science, then how can we believe it? "Science" is done by humans. Then why should we trust humans blindly? The mistakes that scientists commit should be pointed out and they should be rectified. We should continue to question and improve science. It is through that rigorous questioning that science is improved. We should raise our voices in science to make it better. <br><br>You see, science is the best way we have to do anything. Science is the best option we have to gain knowledge and understanding of the universe. And all of our progress and development is based on science. Then why should we raise our voices against it? We should be sceptical of science because science is not a single entity. Science is done by humans. Humans can be wrong, while doing science, humans can make mistakes. So how can we believe science and trust it blindly? So we should question science. We question it to make it better. We question it rigorously because we want to improve science. <br><br>But there are certain people who are against science and say that science is completely wrong. They do not even believe it. They raise their voices against science and say that science is bad. They say to not trust science, to not believe in science, to not follow science, not even listen to it and not even care about it. They say science is evil and bad. They are anti-science. They do not even want science to exist. They just want science to be destroyed. <br><br>So this is the difference between being skeptical of science and being anti-science. Being skeptical of science is important for science, but being anti-science is the enemy of science.