I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.
I don't doubt there are people who do this. However, these reports are tried and tested again and again and again. It only takes one person to point out a fatal flaw, and theyre scrapped.
This point is usually made by people who characterise science as some sort of entity. It's a process which is driven by
not having faith in any single conclusion.
To give an example; evolution. Now i'm not going to get into evolution v creationism. I'm going to tentatively assume you're ok with evolution as a premise.
We start with observable fact. Species change over time. Humans are taller than they were 1000 years ago. Simple, observable facts.
Theory one: (forgotten his name) evolution. Essentially, traits gained by the parents are passed on to their kids - e.g. if you are a bodybuilder, your kid will be strong. We know that's false through observation and testing.
Theory 2: Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Genetic code is passed on with tiny flaws. The vast majority of these flaws are either bred out or lead to the death of the animal. The tiny, tiny percentage of advantageous flaws are passed on through genetic code. Repeat for millenia.
Scientific theory is falsifiable - if we found a fossilised human that we can date to the jurassic period, and we cant come up with a reasonable explaination, it's back to the drawing board for Darwin's theory. It hasn't happened yet, despite numerous attempts (which is good, attempts to disprove is how science moves on) so we're reasonably assured of its veracity. Not entirely convinced, but reasonably assured.
I believe in Darwinian evolution. Not through faith in something without evidence, but trust in those people who are qualified to produce that evidence and are sceptical about it. There's nothing wrong with trust when balanced with available evidence. I understand the theory.and am ok with the premise of it.
I'm not ok with christian science, and do not trust the scientists who would practice it. They have an ulterior motive - true science is led by the evidence not the conclusion. It doesn't have preconceived notions about truth.
So, when you say people have faith in science, you're misunderstanding science. (Most) people place trust in the system of science based on available evidence, and do not place trust in conclusions where the methodology is flawed.
Its like saying you can cross the road without looking, because you have faith in the system. In reality, you check the available evidence (looking both ways) because you want to be right.