Sometimes, I wonder what a religion would be like with rapid-fire talks anyone could speak at, poster sessions, and critique for every presenter.
Science?
EDIT: Figured I should explain myself lest I get voted down for being snarky. In science, to me at least, a lot seems to be taken on faith. There are many stories of a wrong result being published and scientists later not publishing their own research because it didn't agree with that wrong result. Combine that with the fact that a scientist with lots of published history accumulates more and more credibility and, from the outside, it starts to look like a religion with a self-correcting facility.
From the outside the scientific community can often look a little like that; but on the inside it things are very disengaged from ritual observance and faith.
Of course at certain times assumptions are made or theories wrongly rejected :) but, in the words of a great man, "it all comes right in the end".
I don't agree. Science is explicitly concerned with natural phenomena. Anything supernatural must be the domain of superstition, spirituality, or religion.
We suffer somewhat from salience bias: cases where the scientific process is successful are frequent and expected. Cases where the method failed but eventually corrected itself are spectacular. There are literally hundreds of thousands of papers published each year. Quick, can you name two researchers involved in the discovery of the electron's discrete charge? What were their methods? Now, how about Millikan?
As for religions, I would be more likely to believe in one where challenges and debate were frequent, as opposed to something more rigid like, say, Catholicism.
I know that's how it works internally, but I'm not inside. Honestly, I believe in the scientific method in a way very close to how the religious believe in their chosen faith. I have no problem admitting that to myself. Science is basically my religion. The difference between religion and science is what you've described and more (an objective measurable goal for one) and is why I believe in it. But I've never done research, never published a paper. So for me, it's largely faith in the system.
Science?
EDIT: Figured I should explain myself lest I get voted down for being snarky. In science, to me at least, a lot seems to be taken on faith. There are many stories of a wrong result being published and scientists later not publishing their own research because it didn't agree with that wrong result. Combine that with the fact that a scientist with lots of published history accumulates more and more credibility and, from the outside, it starts to look like a religion with a self-correcting facility.