Applying adjectives to science like "skeptical" or "infallible" is non-sensical, it seems to me. It is constantly self-correcting. Religion on the other hand is "set in stone". If certain experiments fail to reproduce after
they have been published, this is a problem with the testing method and rigour with which the results have been assessed. It does not "disprove" science as a method nor does it follow that all science is useless, or even, that there is a better method.
Let me ask you and @Kivlor
a pragmatic question: if you were diagnosed with a life-threatening disease and the doctor prescribed you a drug that (according to studies) showed to have a 90% chance of keeping you alive, would you take the drug or would you put your life "in Jesus' hands" because the bible had accounts of people being healed by him? According to you and Kivlor, both choices are rooted in "human testimony". Are you implying that both provide the same amount of usefulness when it comes to this choice?
If you chose to take the drug over Jesus you must by definition acknowledge that the scientific method is more useful to your life than religious faith. You obviously could choose both (or none, if you were fed up), but I am deliberately posing a black & white choice (you can only chose one) - because that's how you set up the premise of your argument - and to find out if you have a preference, in spite of a degree of skepticism one way or another.
Again, we are talking about degrees, not absolutes. I am asking you whether you value one over the other when it comes to your own life.
I agree with you that there is plenty of arrogance with some
scientists. I don't think we are debating this. But it doesn't follow that so far, there is a better method available to us to make sense of the world around us. There might be, but we haven't come across one yet.