on my finite data theory

We must remember that from the wildly inaccurate models of Ptolemy to the incomplete models of Newton to more recent accounts of black holes, our physicists like scientists in other fields have claimed a nearly complete level of understanding which is not accurate and does not serve science. I say we have observed and tested many things. But what do we know? Next to nothing compared with what is to be known in our unspeakably vast universe full of mystery in every quark and quantum. So rather than trying to formulate complete or nearly complete scientific models, we should focus in on that data we can really prove and confirm; and then rationally extrapolate from that, humbly.

But we must acknowledge what mathematicians call chaos theory, that there will always be holes in our knowledge; and this is part of the process. There is a constant temptation to fill out what we know to a complete theory of a system; We must not indulge. Like the French philosopher Descartes, we must take a narrow, scrutinized view of what facts and information we can truly be confident in. Once our reason has taken this conservative shape, in many cases we can extrapolate from it often quite expansively; But then we are dealing in probabilities and not certainties. But still we'd be working with a more open and ultimately more effective science.

Yet only this if we recall that the prestige of science was based on critical debate, on the review and consideration of many, conflicting rational arguments which gives something approaching infallibility if done properly. But if 'science' is simply assigned as an authority, its authority is that of the Church over Galileo; Dissent is often the cutting edge.