Is faith necessary for science?

I unironically believe that the moral foundations of christianism are necessary for science.

>christianism

You misspelled Catholicism.

That isn't faith retard. Data showing x or y takes no faith, neither foes collecting it.

Unless you see it the answer or results with your own eyes doesn't it require some faith to accept what others tell you is fact?

Example, have you ever seen what Jupiter looks like with your own eyes or just from photos that you are told are what Jupiter looks like?

Trust based on past experience - that is not faith. Faith is "trust" in the absence of prior experience and evidence.

Well you could argue that science requires the faith that science will remain constant and not change later (or earlier) in time.

Like imagine if tomorrow, the half-life of Carbon-14 changed to 7 days. It'd turn science on its head because if nothing is constant, then there's no way we can actually understand anything.

Science NEEDS to be unchanging, or there is no way to know anything about the universe before we started doing science and measuring the changes.

why?

Science is constantly changing, thats what makes it science. The observations will be the same, if the framework for understanding them changes, so be it.

>Science is constantly changing, thats what makes it science

I didn't know the speed of light ever wasn't 3E8 m/s
Sarcasm aside, I'm talking not about our understanding of science, which is open to change as knew things come to light. I'm talking about the axiom about the ability to reproduce an experiment and get the same result.

How can you be sure of past famous experiments if you don't verify it yourself? Scientists take things on "faith" all the time.