Hi Josh,
Often, when skeptics sum up the basic view of science/skeptics vs. believers, the reasoning goes as follows: science is not like a belief or religion because of the fact that science is testable.
Let me now respond: Science is first based on an untestable belief--that physical reality is all there is to reality. Only after that belief is believed (for which there is no test to test), does everything make sense about what is or is not testable.
Therefore, both believers and skeptics are actually "believers"--but in different views of the absolute nature of reality. The so-called "believers" believe that there is a reality which exists independantly from physical reality. And the so-called "skeptics" believe that all reality stems from physical reality, which is all there is to reality.
Neither of these initial beliefs held deeply by both sides--are testable or verifiable.
Something inside a person with such "skeptical" beliefs rings true when it comes to their "physical-only" beliefs about the nature of reality. They have certain beliefs about their senses and physical reality--that tell them that there is no nonphysical realm or part of reality in the first place.
Others, who believe in this invisible half (who often refer to themselves as "believers"), do so because something rings true deep inside them that this invisible half exists--when they first came upon this "invisible" concept. It made sense to them. To the skeptics, only the physical reality "rang true" deep inside.
These different deeply-held beliefs lead each group in different directions when it comes to so-called "proofs" of their belief system. It dictates to them where to look for proof and/or evidence, how to test and evaluate this proof/evidence, what is or is not proof/evidence, etc.
It is only AFTER the intitial belief is accepted (that physical reality is all there is to reality) that all of science's "verifiable tests" fall into place.
Science does a wonderful and great job explaining and testing physical reality as created and then perceived by us humans. Science comes up with great and fun toys & technologies & medicines, etc. They leave totally untouched the invisible underside, so to speak., because they don't believe it is there. And their beliefs dictate other explanations when any "proof" of this invisible world pops up.
For example, someone has memories of a past life. The skeptic says that they probably read about this life somewhere. The believer sees it as proof of reincarnation. Each side is responding to the event as their belief system dictate they must...and this belief system is not testable OUTSIDE of that belief system.
Beliefs dictate the reality you perceive; or beliefs act as filters thru which you perceive & evaluate that reality.
So, for example, a "believer" would say that clairvoyant dreams exist--because "I had a dream of someone I hadn't heard from in 20 years, and that day he called me on the phone." The "believers" belief system allows for this explanation. The "skeptic" would call this a coincidence because his beliefs have no other "box" or "category" within which to place this occurrence.
"Coincidence" to a "believer" may be a method of communication or sign that communication occurs between the two dimensions--physical and spiritual (nonphysical).
"Coincidence" to a "skeptic" is simply a random or chance event. "Believers" (especially Seth fans--have another explanation for what is usually perceived as a random or chance event). All of these perspectives are based on "tests" that are NOT verifying to anyone outside that system of beliefs.
Both groups come to their conclusions--based on their initial deeply-held, subjective and unvarifiable beliefs on the nature of reality...and then create a reality for themselves that they can point to and say, "See, its true what I say. It is not a belief; it is a fact...and I can test that fact. Watch me."
Be well and happy,
Barrie