Scientist's defence, "Check it yourself" doesn't really help in more complex subjects if the Average Joe doesn't believe it.
Mika
That's a really good point. In this thread alone we've seen an example of that (Goober and James Watson). Sure, he could pay to access the journals, but what does that do him if he doesn't have the background to understand the data presented (not saying he doesn't, just illustrating a point). Ultimately, there's a level of knowledge acquisition there that is a prerequisite yet is not easily attainable through self-teaching.
In theory, all of science is available to anyone who so chooses to investigate it. In practice, the sciences are a collection of elite disciplines managed by specialists which are difficult to gain a basis in even with access to the education and the equipment.
Of course, that doesn't mean science itself is taken on faith, merely that many of its followers exercise faith in order to be assurred that the conclusions are accurate. Complete trust and/or faith emerges in the intricate details of the scientific method, as I've already beaten to death arguing with Ed.
While I'm at this:
Could you expand on that point? I've searched for the origin of philosophy and can't find a thing about religion.
Not really a surprise if you aren't looking in the right places - it's not a fact that science/philosophy tends to advertise.
Philosophy has multiple definitions and none really reaches consensus but it is most usefully described as the intervening form between science and religion. Philosophy is not evidence-based, or at least it does not follow the scientific method, but relies essentially upon reason to generate logical conclusions about meaning. If that sounds airy-fairy, you're reading it absolutely correctly... philosophy is not one of my favorite points in the history of science.
Philosophy actually has no singular history, but was derived independently at different points in time both between and within multiple different civilizations. The reason you rarely find mention of its roots in religion is because its not a linear progression. Much of early philosophy concerned with meaning and ethics was derived from religion as an attempt to find ways to prove ethics and morality, and reason, without referring back to a deity. While that may sound anti-religious, some of its key players through history were profoundly religious individuals and moreover advocated complete reform (not abolishment) of religion. Socrates was one such fellow in the Western tradition. Eastern religions and philosophy had far blurrier lines, though unfortunately I haven't spent near enough time studying those particular nuances to give an accurate description.
Ultimately, religion gives us supernatural reason for belief. Philosophy takes that one step further, attempting to find reason for belief in a quest for knowledge. Early Enlightenment philosophy started towards the scientific method, looking at testable variables that affect known facts to explain beliefs. Philosophy then diverged into the basics of modern science, relying upon the scientific method to propose and test hypotheses, and modern branches of philosophy which at their highest levels are still concerned with meaning and belief (see existentialism as a general branch or Michel Foucault as an influential individual). The sciences then diverged again into the so-called hard sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and their derivative specialties) and the "soft" sciences (sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, ad nauseum). The hard sciences diverged earlier from enlightenment philosophy and are based on strict empirical criteria, whereas the soft sciences diverged later and maintain more of their roots back into philosophy, which is part of the reason that sociology and psychology tend to produce work that is much harder to nail down into concrete fact - both of those disciplines still aim at meaning as their ultimate objective, where the hard sciences aim for explanation of observable fact.
Philosophy was born out of religion in an attempt to remove supernatural beings (not supernatural variables, those still remained a component for quite some time) from meaning, morality, and ethics. Some religious figures engaged in philosophical exercises, but for the most part its development resulted from an attempt to distance religion from everyday life. Hence why we would not have philosophy without religion, and ultimately science without philosophy.
That said, most modern philosophy is a bunch of metaphysical junk that isn't useful until you find yourself in a goofy discussion like this one =)
However I do take exception to you saying that every person takes science on faith because science has to be taken on faith. That is nonsense for the reasons I've posted before.
Correction: nonesense in absolutist or simplistic terms, yes. Nonsense in a much more intricate look at issues confounding science? Debatable. IMHO, of course.
