And no, I don't put faith in science. Faith means belief without evidence. I accept science. I acknowledge that scientists are human, and that humans can be fallible, corrupt, egotistical and plain old stupid. And I admire the Scientific Method for doing an excellent job of counteracting most of our human failings.
For example, you have faith in the efficacy of a pharmaceutical product based on the fact that you trust the peer reviewers of the reports of its clinical trials, and the reputation of the journals those reports are published in.
Without faith you could not accept any scientific conclusion unless you had directly observed the experiments they were based on. Neither could you believe anything on the news or any historical event you hadn't observed.
Nonsense. I don't need faith to assign various claims varying degrees of trust and confidence.
Or perhaps you just dislike the term because it's often used in a religious context?
No definition of faith I'm aware of relates to confidence based on weight of evidence, or balance of probabilities.
To use your example of pharmaceutical efficacy, I take a pill with the expectation that it will elicit results comparable to its stated claim. I hope that it works. I'm happy if it does work. But my worldview won't be shattered if it doesn't.
That's just one of numerous definitions of the word, a historically legitimate definition to be sure. Sadly any innocent use of the word for that purpose is -- to my mind at least -- tainted by the other, socially dominant meaning.
And anyway, even using your cherry-picked definition, I still say I don't have faith in science, because I can't afford it "complete trust or confidence". While I do think the core principles of science are the best tools we have to describe the natural world, even these core principles can not be immune to questioning.
It just so happens however that none of the things that would kill the theory have ever actually been shown.