In biology there is teaching on how to deconstruct papers; how to really think critically about the application of the scientific method being promoted by the author, and what domain the findings are really applicable to. It's not great, because of the dogma inherent in biology itself (of which there is a ton), but at least it is training in the right direction, even if the walls of dogma and faith bind both research and critical thinking to a box. Granted, that training doesn't really begin until graduate school, but at least it is there at some point.

In physics on the other hand, there is no such training, at least not to the level of the first couple years of graduate school (as far as I got in physics). In physics there is so much trust and faith in what has come before it's ludicrous. I had no idea how different it was until I went back to school for biology. I didn't really understand the dogma and faith in both areas of science (all of science really) until I began a "post awakening" investigation into it.