That is a nice answer Blueredwhite.
However I will have to disagree on parts of the faith side.
these disciplines have developed to a point where there is hardly anyone that specializes in more than a couple of these disciplines. In other words, the ones that confirm a finding when it is announced are the ones that specialize in that particular field. Specialists in other fields have to take their words for it. It's called having faith, or trust
While it is true that each field has specialists who know their own area far better than those from other disciplines, any decent scientist has a certain amount of overlap into other areas and is able to follow the logic, workings and conclusions of specialists from those areas, once the research has been done.
It is far easier to understand something when it is fully explained than it is to pioneer the research yourself.
I also hold a distinction between faith and trust.
If I trust a scientist to get it right then I still want to see his/her workings so that I can follow his/her logic in reaching his/her conclusions. This does not diminish my trust but is just my way of attenpting to confirm the findings.
If I have absolute faith in a particular scientist then I have no reason to even bother with figuring it out for myself. I would just
know that his/her conclusion was correct.
So I would say that within the scientific comunity and across disciplines there has to be "trust" but there certainly doesn't have to be "faith".
™ Version 4.2
