There are a lot of different ways in which one can view 'science'. However, for any view to be even marginally realistic, I would suggest that the possibility of change must recognized. Simply put, 'science' changes on a daily basis; new discoveries are made, established knowledge is revised or reinterpreted, and mistakes are (hopefully) corrected. Speaking of the latter, erroneous or fraudulent research is a real problem (for example, see https://retractionwatch.com ). A doctor of my acquaintance confided in me recently, that he tries to stay current (again, 'science' changes daily), but he doesn't know what published research is real, and what is fraudulent.
When I meet people who claim to base their lives on 'science', I often ask: "Is that yesterday's science, today's science, or tomorrow's science?" (The question can produce some lively discussion! ;^)
>>Who is John Galt wrote: “[E]rroneous or fraudulent research is a real problem (for example, see https://retractionwatch.com ). A doctor of my acquaintance confided in me recently, that he tries to stay current (again, ‘science’ changes daily), but he doesn’t know what published research is real, and what is fraudulent.”
No doubt there is a lot of bad science out there.
Mr. Kalamata