Good try on the rolling eyes :)
Even if there were a way to get knowledge by Faith that actually worked, you'd have to use your normal human reasoning to determine that it was working and Hume would say that wasn't good enough. So you might be getting accurate information, but couldn't be sure that it was.
It's a bit like saying the Pope can't lie when speaking ex cathedra. That may be, but how do we know this? Because he said so.. err hang on.
As for 'beliefs about research' there is an answer to that. I certainly wasn't there at every experiment and couldn't have understood them all anyway.
So firstly I can not be 100% sure about anything. I agree with Hume on this (he didn't advocate ignoring all knowledge. Just to keep that doubt in mind)
Every 'fact' in my life is actually a probability. Not an exact one, but an estimate.
My favourite example is that I don't know New York exists. But in order for it not to exist there'd have to be such an elaborate conspiracy to trick me that it boggles the mind.
It wouldn't just mean every map was faked for my benefit, but every person on TV or in books who casually mentioned New York would have to be in on it. On a summers day many years ago I sat in Hyde Park by the Serpentine and listened to a tourist with an american accent speak of New York. If that was staged for my benefit then I give up
:)
For the facts about say Newton's theories to be false would require the same kind of immense and internally consistent conspiracy.
This is not comparable to religion since religion is not internally consistent. Even within the same denomination and the same village church each believer has their own version and each version contradicts itself on closer examination.