Of course there's faith in science, the no-quotes kind. First, you have to believe in the scientific method. Second, you have to believe that the process as it's currently carried out in academia and elsewhere leads to valid, relatively unbiased results.
The first is more of a metaphysical question. But there are huge doubts about the second in every discipline, maybe except physics. There are publishing biases, observational studies everywhere, replication problems, sample biases (19 year old college students), even straight up fraud that goes uncorrected for years. And that's just the cases we know about.
There are people who state things like "American scientists have found that #fact" and then get angry when one proceeds to question them on details (to find out why the belief might be justified). Apparently they feel personally attacked if one does that. I've even heard "Why can't you just believe it?!' as answer..
I find this behaviour weird, but it seems to be quite common.
Thank you for the interesting read. My first thoughts are of the Placebo itself (as it's coming up in the first part). A bit off-topic, but the placebo is often called sugar-pil but its exact content is often not revealed. It can be full of harmful stuff and this causes the examined group to look much better. "The control group experienced equal amounts of stomach aches" when the placebo was laced with stomach ache inducing stuff!
About parapsychology as mentioned in your link: Personally, that stuff scears the crap out of me. I just like to think there is more between heaven and earth than we know...
It's not true that there's such a thing as "faith" in true science, since science is the opposite of faith.
But I would agree that there's faith in "science" with quotes, ie science-sounding pseudo-facts.
Food supplements can't be good; we should just eat real food that we cook ourselves; everything else is going to do us harm.