Are you suggesting that there are people who practice science that do not rely on trust in others in any way to establish their beliefs?

If you're going to invoke the T word, I'm going to insist that you define it.

My point is that rational thought takes place on a foundation of deeply held beliefs. Those deeply held beliefs are very hard to address, even for practicing scientists! Many scientists hold deeply weird, non-scientific beliefs and yet are still able to contribute to their own fields. There is one group of humans, each with a mix of different experiences in different areas of thought and practice.

A dilemma: A scientist reasons socially when choosing an area of research. They choose research that will get funded, published, and cited. Or a scientist eschews popular research in favor of something that they think is important, which is irrational on it's face, as that means they won't get funding, published, or cited.

The point is that social reasoning is not irrational. Rational thought always takes place in a frame of reference.

I do not reject rational skepticism. It's an extremely useful tool. It's very good at finding facts. It's very good at convincing the majority of people who reason the same way as you do, and have the same basic foundation of knowledge as you do. It just does not work when it comes to people who do not share that same frame of reference.

What most people call "science" is itself a form of social reasoning. Unless you yourself are building the instrument, collecting the data, and analyzing the data, you are using social heuristics to guide your belief about something based on what others believe (who may have done one or more of those steps).