It read to me more that you were saying that science is about invisible woo just like religion is, it&#x27;s just that the practitioners aren&#x27;t about rituals or rhetoric.<p>In particular, your last sentence says that science is about mutual trust and good faith - when in fact it is much less about that than religion. You don&#x27;t have to have mutual trust to do science since you can work it out all the way from first principles. Science aims to be robust enough that you <i>don&#x27;t</i> have to trust other people. Good science has different groups repeating the same experiment multiple times, to better ensure that the effect is observable, and <i>not</i> based on trust or faith. Yes, at the cutting edge, you might have to use trust more when there&#x27;s only one or two groups with the capacity for doing the testing, but ideally you have multiple groups <i>specifically to avoid</i> relying on trust and faith.<p>That knowledge then trickles down to applied science, where it&#x27;s field-tested. A materials scientist at a widget company doesn&#x27;t trust a theoretical scientist - they&#x27;ll take the latter&#x27;s study, make their own prototypes, and check the stuff works as suggested.<p>Science is not about trust and faith or defined by them; we just use them as humans to facilitate sharing knowledge on the experimental edge.