I would take issue with this, at least when speaking of "faith" as "a belief that is not based on proof". For example, the belief that a god created the world in 7 days is based on faith since there is no evidence to support your belief. On the other hand, belief in the big bang is supported by some evidence.
I meant faith as in, "I have faith in the economy". I think we all know that proofs are a central part of every field of science.
But history has shown that a lot of laws were discovered to be wrong (or incomplete) in the past. Things like the laws of gravity by Newton come to mind. People had a lot of faith in those laws, we're able to send rockets to the moon based on those calculations, but still Einstein managed to show that everything is a lot more complex with his theory of relativity.
I would really emphasize "incomplete" here. Newton's laws fully accounted for the phenomena they sought to account for, and gravity really does work like Newton said it would work on the level that Newton was talking about it. The idea that there were things under the surface giving rise to this phenomenon probably would not even have surprised Newton.
I would take issue with this, at least when speaking of "faith" as "a belief that is not based on proof". For example, the belief that a god created the world in 7 days is based on faith since there is no evidence to support your belief. On the other hand, belief in the big bang is supported by some evidence.