Isn’t a lot of science anchored on a great deal of faith and pseudo fact?

(disclaimer) I am not stating that ALL science is erroneous or wrong, many mysteries of science man has been allowed to crack. There are a lot in science which is a guess at best. Please, do not attack my faith, or others because you have no answer or hard facts to back up assertions scientist have made.

It was said on one thread regarding faith, * They demand proof and facts for an opinion.*. If it comes down to ”Show me the money”, wouldn’t science have to stand up to the same criteria? Many people take what scientist tell them as fact, to believe those alleged facts show a measure of faith. Scientist posted a schematic of the Planet Jupiter, which showed the 3rd level of atmosphere surrounding Jupiter is Ammonium Hydrosulfide. They learned this how, a satellite dipped down in the clouds, took a sample, and had the power to break orbit and send the data back to Earth? Near the possible core, at least they didn’t state that there was a core or what it was made of, they stated near the core was Fluid Metallic Hydrogen. How do they know this for fact? Since we are talking about ”Show me the money”, something you can see, hear, feel, touch, or smell. Did they drill down there and take a sample? If they didn’t then how do they know they are 100% accurate? If they are not 100% accurate should they put an asterisk or something on their schematic stating it is their best “gestimation”; that it may be off by X% or more; maybe completely wrong? To say this is the schematic of the Planet Jupiter without having ever probed it, witnessed (laid eyes on that they claim) requires the receiver to have faith they (the scientist) know what they are talking about even without ever having been able to peel the onion of sorts.