You can view it cynically or idealistically, but what makes science "science" is that every would-be belief must be tested and not accepted blindly. This is tested first with logic--does the view make sense in light of what is already known? Each scientist has to make that decision on their own, and of course, because humans tend to have a bias first and foremost to themselves and their own ideas, a bad idea may pass this test. But then there are the other two tests: experimentation and peer review. And the more experiments you do, and the more people who are out to prove you wrong, the better! This is the only way that truly bad ideas will be eliminated from the arena. Experimentation often has the final say: no matter what the idea is, no matter how simple and beautiful and elegant one's hypothesis, it can be utterly killed by one single, ugly fact. And when experiments and peer review differ, the challenge to the peers is to explain the experimental results. If further experimentation shows there is even so much as one lonely exception to the original scientist's hypothesis, the challenge falls on the scientist to explain that exception and see whether or not it can be understood within the framework of his or her original understanding.
In one respect, Buddhism and science are very compatible: when you find out experimentally that the world doesn't match your theories, you must change your theories (or you risk being one of the "funerals" Planck talked about in the quotation above). I seem to remember the Buddha saying something along these same lines: don't just believe because of authority, but rather, go out and test and see whether these teachings are true. (Forgive me if I've misquoted at all.)
In a different respect, though, one might argue that because some aspects of Buddhism are not testable in any conclusive way--reincarnation, any type of afterlife, etc. (and these aren't just Buddhism; most faiths apply here in one way or another)--they are therefore not scientific claims and fall outside of the scientific method. The choice becomes that of believing although there is not conclusive proof, or not believing because there is not conclusive proof. Most scientists may side with the latter, but I don't think most would begrudge anyone the former, just as long as they don't start claiming something is "science" when it's not. For example, the group Answers In Genesis claims to have "scientific" evidence that the world was made only 6,000 years ago. ...This is when scientists worldwide will start to become a bit collectively peeved at a religious view.