We know for a fact that the current atomic model is false. We just haven't figured out a better one yet. The first sentence is a
demonstration of how people are
not blindly following the
current atomic model, but applying it when it works, and
admitting its faults.
Remember your
beginning algebra class? How about those
postulates you learned? Take, for example,
the Line Postulate, which states that "For every
two different points there is
exactly one line that contains both points." This is something that
you and I believe, but it is not proven. Instead, your
math textbook probably said that it was a
postulate because it is a
fundamental part of
Euclidean geometry, but it is not possible to prove. They asked you to believe that it is true, but to understand that it is not a
universal law. (Note that in a
non-Euclidean geometry, you can sometimes find two distinct lines through two distinct points.)
I know that I was introduced to the
scientific method as a way of
describing the world around us. These
theories and
equations come up because they are of
practical value to us.
My chemistry teacher taught us the
Bohr model of an atom, and we believed that it was true because
it made sense. Then he proceeded to teach us a model that was an
even better representation of an atom, because it worked for atoms other than
hydrogen. The point he made was that even the
modern quantum model of an atom is
not necessarily correct, and it is likely to be replaced by the
discovery of a new model sometime soon,
but it works, damnit! (Those were
his exact words, I believe.)
I don't have
blind faith in science, I have a
rational belief in it.
Update after that of
nocodeforparanoia: Yeah, but maybe you should write the
Blind faith in anything is just as bad as blind faith in anything else. Oh, and
btw, I know people who actually do have
a blind faith in science, so
your point is certainly valid.