Believing in science makes scientists feel better. Science is a system of explanation; myths and religion are a system of explanation. What harm - indeed, what difference - is there between the two, if all truths are relative to the believer? .
But there is a very important difference. Real science, unlike religion and any other system that explains the world, offers no truth. It offers merely probability. There is no law of science that is immune to question and testing and doubt. To be useful, a scientific statement has to be testable. The evidence that supports a statement has to be external. It also has to be predictable; if something happens only once any theory about its nature is untestable. Science, as Shermer says, "aims for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation." (pg. 20) .
There is no way to test the existence of ghosts, psychic phenomena or crop circles. The only testable, concrete evidence for them (for instance, smudgy photographs) can be doubted as doctored; they cannot be reproduced or observed in any testable context. Testaments to their formation are almost exclusively without any documentation or instrument readings - just visual reports from a distance. A commonly held scientific belief is that the simplest explanation is usually the truest one. In the case of the supernatural/superstitious, the simplest is dismissed with as little consideration as the most complicated explanation is accepted. What unifies these accounts is the witnesses" willingness to believe what their observations point to - that their ancestors are still alive, that we are not alone in the universe, that they know what almost no one else in the world knows and therefore belong to a secret club. It is extremely difficult to find any evidence that disproves the roundness of the earth; at the very least, the pro-roundness observations far outweigh the pro-flatness ones.