The devil has hired me to be his advocate.

Science does rely on faith. Not on the infallibility of perceptions, as no such assumption is ever made and, in fact, we know our perceptions to be highly fallible and unreliable in many ways. Instead, we have faith that the world will continue into the future in a very specific way. That the sun will rise. That gravity will continue to hold us to the earth. That our food will continue to nourish rather than poison.

There is nothing logically inconsistent about supposing gravity to reverse itself, or the sun to cease rising. So it's not something that can be demonstrated as a result of pure necessity. Clearly we must resort to the evidence. But consider two hypotheses.

Gravity is a universal attractive force for all time.
Gravity is an attractive force until December 30th, 2012, at which point it becomes a repulsive force.

Both hypotheses equally predict our evidence, so our evidence does not distinguish between them. There is not a shred of reasoning to support one over the other. It is thus blind faith.

I think the OP's argument is a very interesting train of thought.
It is a great philosophical argument, what is can really ever know.
As I've mentioned before I like the Descartian philosophy which states the only thing we can know is real or true is our own consciousness.

Relating to the OP's argument, don't think it is fair the say that this "blind faith" is linked to science, as it is in fact innately linked to the human condition.
While our perceptions may not be real and the world around us could be completely different or a fabrication entirely, I don't think this is ever really focused on, because what purpose does it really serve.
However, in anything larger than an atomic scale the world has shown itself to be somewhat predicable and to behave the same way regularly and even follow laws, which have been discovered by scientists. Although I don't think this is limited to science. I think nearly every single action is dictated by this blind faith that the world around us follows the same predicable pattern that we can perceive.

tl;dr I believe that this perception that the world we experience is real, is a flaw of the human condition, not not directly linked to science. Most people; religious or not religious, accept the world around them as real and not a fabricated. Science is started from that fountain, and the fact of the matter, it is sound because the world at an atomic level is predictable.

Actually there is a difference between faith and blind faith. I'm not really familiar with philosophy but I think philosophers of science would most likely argue that science is an approximation to reality, and that is the best most efficient methodology for explaining the natural world that humans are capable of.

But it's mostly silly philosophical ideas because hey, we could all be living in some computer simulation and none of this is actually true for the 'real' world outside the computer. What matters is that it works to explain things, the faith comes in when we ask ourselves if we are limited by our own perception of reality. The assumption is made that what humans see and hear actually does exist. Blind faith would be having someone just tell you something is true, and you believe it 'blindly' or without any justification. Having faith in science says that we believe what we see is real, and that people are making the best and most logical attempt to explain things with some evidence/justification that it is actually true, given the assumption that we aren't actually just a computer simulation or something.

GUYS FFS HAVE ANY OF YOU HEARD OF THE TERM

DEGREES OF CERTAINTY?

It's not even remotely interesting. There's a chance before drinking the next cup of water, some weird event will happen that'll make you unable to process water and instead process oil. Still wana drink water and die? :| dumb MFs.