This medium is based on words... so their meaning is vital, do any reading on natural language philosophy and you'll see just how important the how's and why's of what we write is so important.
I've pointed out that 'faith' is a mere summary word, used in place of providing any reasoning when making an assertion.
It's not that you do, or don't have reasoning for any particular assertion. It is just that such reasoning remains hidden, and has been substituted for the word 'faith'.
So I guess faith in any assertion may be misplaced, or, may be sound, according to the experience of the person making the assertion. But other people with different experiences (facts) may reach a different conclusion.
But without revealing the reasoning behind each and every use of the word 'faith', how can one say whether it's blind or not.
Faith can never be achieved in total isolation, you can't just tell me to 'try trusting in something without proof...' there is always context, there will always be information available that is contingent on my decision to trust, or not to trust. One would not even be able to understand what a 'something' was, if it came with no information. The very fact it's a 'something' means it comes with a boatload of information.