FAITH... WITH REASON

Einstein posited two axioms for his theory of special relativity: the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference (i.e invariant); the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference (i.e invariant). These axioms underpin the GR theory, and therefore what is understood as cosmology. I asked you what you consider evidential for one of these axioms by way of gauging your thoughts on what you consider evidence. 

Of course you are under no obligation to answer but I assure you, I wasn't trying to trick you as I knew that Einstein inductively reasoned these axioms and I was merely showing an example that I myself don't know the answer to, and so I personally hold faith that these axioms are true (or more precisely, I appeal to authority). Scientists themselves know that inductive reason can be problematic (see pessimistic induction) and another type of reasoning is abductive reasoning: inference to the best explanation, which is also problematic (what is best is subjective, is one critique).

For example, given your statement that I quoted above, my best explanation, inferred by your statement, is that if you don't know that invariant laws of physics is a fundamental axiom then you don't really know the cosmology that you adhere to and if you do not know it then you must have faith in it. I don't care if I'm wrong or right in my assumption because my point is to show you that using inductive or abductive premises to deduce conclusive theories, which is what scientific methodological reasoning is, is not as absolute as you seem to think it is; some geezer call Karl Popper even wrote an influential book on it - The Logic of Scientific Discovery. ( I highly recommend this book, it's not an easy read as it's academically dry but the payoff, for an understanding of science without actually doing science, is worth it; no pain, no gain!)

To not entertain criticisms of scientific methodology and to hold a scientific absolutist view is dogmatic and scientism by any other name, which is incoherent. Also, it is okay to say that there are certain things in science that one may have faith in due to one's ignorance on the subject, I mean... science per se is a big scary discipline! 

But I have to ask you: do I seem confused?