Appeal to faith fallacy?

We shouldn't believe what scientists tell us any more than prophets based just on their word. It just happens that scientists tell us what the scientific method uncovers. We should believe in the scientific method because it is by far the best method we have for determining what is true.

"Faith" is a tricky word and many Christians don't like the Biblical definitions (“faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). When we say we place our "faith" in humanity or scientists, this is typicality shorthand for "they have proven reliable in the past so as a heuristic, I trust them while also acknowledging that evidence is what is most important." Now, if you say you trust them "regardless,"... regardless of an abundance of evidence against their claims? Then yes, you would be committing the appeal to faith .

I see this issue related to the recent discussion on abductive reasoning.  In those situations, we considered a number of "observations" to come up with the most probable conclusion.

If we were to accept something because just one authority said so, we'd be heading for the appeal to faith or perhaps even an appeal to false authority .

However, if we were to consider multiple "observations" (the evidence provided by multiple authorities, as well as considering the reasons given by those authorities), we'd be well on our way to the most probably conclusion about an issue.

Defining terms is always my starting point. In the context of a philosophical discussion, the definition of faith is a belief held without evidence to support the belief.

When we are talking about experts, before trusting an expert, one must determine whether the expert’s claims are valid. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of bias or conflict of interest. Otherwise you squarely in the Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority.

"Who To Believe" is, of course, an essential question that everyone deals with all the time.   Because no one has direct knowledge of everything, we rely on "Authorities" to learn about the world.  A basic form of Inductive Logic is "Argument From Authority," where we conclude something is true because an expert said it is.   To accept an expert who is not qualified is to commit one of the Appeal To Authority Fallacies.  But the use of such reasoning is unavoidable; otherwise everyone would have to create mathematics, research history, report on events in the world, develop medical breakthroughs and other scientific theories etc. etc. on their own, which is impossible.  But any of these experts can be wrong, for a variety of reasons, including that they not be qualified expert, they may be biased etc.  Or they may be totally qualified, but their best theory doesn't pan out, as when science tweaks a previously accepted theory based on new knowledge.     So each of us have to critically judge the information given by  authorities, weighing the reasonableness of their claims against their credentials and possible biases, and choose what to believe.   That is why reasonable people can believe different things, especially on controversial issues such as climate change, but not so much on issues such as the shape of the earth.