Sure, I'll take a stab at this...
Science is based on observation right?
"Observation" is pretty ill-defined.
BasisScience is based upon testing ideas to find those which are supported by repeated measurements.All manner of ideas can be put forth (the set of "hypotheses" or "theories"), but
how science views each of the various members of that set, at any given time, is
wholly dependent upon the then-current state of the testing of
each of them.
That's one reason why even most-cherished ideas are properly referred to as "theories", since a new testing methodology--which would
itself be subject to scrutiny!--might suddenly reveal an important cherished idea to be untenable (for now).
Skepticism, NOT certaintyIf you read that carefully, you should realize that modern science is not based upon certainty. Instead, it is based upon skepticism, which is the inevitable consequence of accepting that our current state of knowledge is necessarily limited, so that our testing of theories (and even the theories themselves) might simply be inadequate to disprove some given theory
today.
Some implications of this skepticism:
• The best science reports not only measurements, but also the uncertainty/error in each measurement (including a discussion of
systematic errors).
• Scientists must be willing to have their entire "theory"/"model"/"worldview" of
some or even
all aspects of what we experience/observe be upended by newer, more accurate / precise repeated & confirmed measurements.
This is true even for our most-cherished ideas!• Theories which pass logical muster
must be kept around until every conceivable test/measurement has been made and confirmed by as many scientists as possible... And since even our notions of what CAN be tested change, we have to live with the fact that
everything that we think we know
might be upended tomorrow morning by a better measurement or a theory which better incorporates the widest-known set of best measurements.
Current operational understandingThe way "science" is currently viewed is perhaps best summarized by this:
1-a) Theories are approximations to "the truth", to the extent that "the truth" is knowable.
1-b) The better tests of each theory report the
uncertainty associated with the test / measurement.
2) Statements related to "proving"/"disproving" or "verifying"/"not verifying" a given theory/idea are all to be understood as meaning "within the scope of the current state of our ability to test the given theory/idea".
3) Given #2, the current level of testing/measurements of a given theory tend to verify or disprove that theory only within a given
regime. This "regime" might be defined by the measurements, themselves, or by the postulates of the theory,
itself.
4) As a new theory (call it
T_n) arises which overlaps or subsumes the "regime" of some pre-extant given theory (call it
T_g), then
IF T_g is well-verified (and thus accepted as a very good approximation to "the truth") within its own regime (call it
R_g),
THENwhen the regime of
T_n (call it
R_n) is constrained to correspond to the regime of validity of
T_g,
T_n must reduce to T_gI.e., in the limit as
R_n -> R_g,
T_n -> T_g
