Yes and no. Obviously, blind and religious faith is not reasonable when we are talking about science. However, a lot of structures in science are are about maki

Yes and no. Obviously, blind and religious faith is not reasonable when we are talking about science. However, a lot of structures in science are are about making "belief" or "trust" a bit more objective than what you could do as an individual. (Peer) reviews, academic journals and conferences and even things like SciHub are, in the end, to a large degree about trust. What's the alternative? Following every single argument every researcher makes back to the beginning and replicate their work before you base any further work or thought on what they did or said? That's not really feasible in most domains. And, personally, I'd rather call the basis of science curiosity and not (just) skepticism.