Convincing people your interpretation of reality exists is literally all that politics is.

What? No. No, no, you naive fool... many politicians, if not most, don't believe most of what they're selling, and don't give a flying fuck about it.

They'll sell whatever line the party they're working for wants them to sell, and they'd just as happily sell the opposition party's line if it paid better and they could switch without being called a turncoat.

Also, it's not about convincing people about specific beliefs; most people are mostly already convinced of their worldviews and if they change them it won't be because of some politician. It's about convincing them, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the politician shares those beliefs, and will impose them on people who don't if they vote for them.

despite being correct, science is also an interpretation of reality.

Again, no. Science (except for mathematics, but that's it's own thing) doesn't and shouldn't ever claim to be correct.

It's the most accurate approximation we have so far of how nature works, but it's constantly trying to achieve better approximations, and will happily throw away the old ones when it finds a better one.

It also should always make very clear that it's an approximation or a description, not an interpretation. Science should always be objective, never subjective, and interpretations are by definition subjective.

Convincing people is war. Exerting power is politics.