uh, what? where does belief prove science wrong? supernatural phenomena has its own science to begin with

Orville and Wilbur Wright believed they could fly, when at the time, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England and a powerful man of science, had made the forceful declaration; "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
How long have we used specific herbs that have been considered 'old wives tales' by the medical establishment only to find that they do, in fact, contain active ingredients to combat many a malady. It is only now that they are acknowledging the healing powers of meditation and massage, when there has been a long standing belief in their remedial qualities. None of these are supernatural. And anyway isn't the supernatural only a manifestation of that which we don't yet understand and have the scientific theory for?

Leonardi Davinci developed the first known helicopter....if he had the tools necessary, his design would have worked.......just because some whack scientist said whatever doesn't mean that belief disproved science (also, in the end, the idea might require belief, but its the thing itself that comes from science)...........as for herbs, i don't quit get your point......but does it help that i am a firm believer in mind over body?.........anyway, i don't quite know where you're going, you're giving me examples but i don't quite get what you're trying to prove? that belief merits more than science, or that is at least an equal counterpart?

Yes. I feel belief deserves merit. You speak as if there is no reasoning behind belief. There is reasoning. You believe in mind over body, and you have a reason for that, don't you? There is no scientific data to prove it, however it is accepted by the scientific community as fact that people heal faster with the right attitude. As far as my 'herbal reference' goes the scientific community has deemed many as 'hogwash' and 'nonsense' for years while people go on believing and using them. Even when the proof is in the healing they won't give it credence because they don't know 'how' it works. Placebo effect? Mind over body(matter)? Miracles? I don't know. Each case has its own merits. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is belief does have merit and reasoning and shouldn't be deemed irrelevant.

awe, true true.............you're right, i "believe" in substantial dualism, but there is slight scientific proofs....for example, the scientific community has yet to "locate" the mind physically and "psychology" is doing immense wonders..........it would appear that there is something more than this physical universe, and humans, like every creature, has a part of this....philosophers/scientist call it the mind, religion calls it the soul.........but i think the main distinction between science and religion is that science is rooted in facts (which they believe) while religion is solely rooted in belief, and beliefs differ throughout.....facts, not so much, though some do differ......philosophy, though having a varied of fields, is not as diverse as religion and most believe in general concepts.....but although this is in itself a belief, it is still more scientific in that is based on rules which aim for semi-fact-reasonable beliefs.....religion, though reasonable to some, is not reasonable enough for others........but i don't know man, these are just my thoughts.....i could be wrong.........think as you wish, believe as you will, and i highly suggest you dive into some philosophies and philosophers and see what you make of it all........i think everyone should have some understanding of religion, science, and philosophy.....most do not.......philosophy is the least known subject of these......many may "philosophize" but unless they actually know philosophy, it's generally "hogwash" and worthless.....much like a priest arguing that all rules of science (evolution, creation, etc.) is wrong.....that is "hogwash"

I like how you think. I reckon we pretty much agree on most issues(this is not why I like how you think, I think.). I definitely will try and get my hands on more philosophers to read, but the ones I have attempted in the past have really been a bit of a plod. Religion and psychology have always been more interesting areas to me. And death, of course.