Incorrect. "Science" is "science" because it works in a reproducible fashion--same applies to "technology", "modern medicine", etc. We don't have to fully grok

Incorrect. "Science" is "science" because it works in a reproducible fashion--same applies to "technology", "modern medicine", etc. We don't have to fully grok a how a medicine works (example: SSRI anti-depressants) understand basically that it does work. We do need a double-blind study however. "Rituals" need not have any efficacy at all. Surely burning a stick smeared in kangaroo fat does nothing to cure ailments. It's entirely possible the only reason is "this is what our tribe has always done." Certainly rituals create tribe cohesion and can have a placebo effect, but it is a fallacy to equate these things to science-based medicine. "Tapping keyboards" is not a "ritual"--we are not typing to appease the great silicon gods--we are doing it as means of communication and performing economically valuable work. Rituals which do seem to work, e.g. plant-based medicine, can be used as an "intuition pump" for scientific study. The fact that a plant has been used for thousands of years is a good sign that it may have some effect, but that effect still needs to be verified.