"No. What I submit is that we operate a great deal more on the basis of faith than we do on certitude. We trust propositions made to us by science without testing for ourselves whether the statements are true. With respect to the speed of light, that is something science can observe in the present day, though it only treats of one small aspect of light. Even in the matter of the speed of light, the average person lacks the tools and intelligence to measure it."
Ok, I still don't really understand your point. Consider...all of these things, discoveries, scientific principles, etc. are and have been verified by thousands of people who have put forth the effort to study and understand them. In fact, anyone who wants to do so can slog through the educational process in order to verify them for him or herself. Back to the example of the speed of light, none of the thousands of scientists who have studied, understood, and measured it have said, "nope, not verifiable!" or "nope, untrue!"
You seem to be marking the above scenario as the equivalent of religious faith. I see an enormous difference between the two. A Christian takes the messages of the Bible on faith because there is no way, short of some kind of time machine, to verify what is said. On the other hand, scientific principles are verifiable to any person with the inclination to study, and have been verified in such a manner over and over and over and over again. How can you say those two scenarios are even remotely similar?
Not quite. The amount of observation and reporting of current history lends certitude where scientific statements are made. Nevertheless, we operate with less knowledge than we care to admit. Science is far more ignorant than it pretends to be. To suggest that I might be ready to deny facts of physics, biology, chemistry etc. because I do not believe in an unobserved, unrecorded rendition of history is merely to suggest a red herring. I'm used to it.