This thread has had me huffing and puffing (or perhaps hand wringing) for a while, but the topic is such that any response can be countered. A proper discussion on the various nuances of each cited instance where science has apparently failed is one I am woefully inadequate for. Therefore, I say my piece:
One of the few things that has stuck with me since my school days is the concept of significant figures [1]. There are more details to this concept, but in the context of this discussion what is relevant is that an accurate measurement [2] would run into infinite significant figures. In other words, we would need infinite resolution in the measuring instrument to make an accurate measurement. So the fact that science is approximate, imprecise etc. is a fair complaint if the goal is accuracy, but accuracy is not practical. I am glad some wise humans decided I should be told this sooner than later. Instead we have the scientific method, peer review etc. which is probably the best that we humans have come up with to deal with the infinitely complex universe we live in. This leads me to the point I'm trying to make - the reason to accept science and its findings, warts and all, is simply because we are human and the scientific method is the best method of enquiry we have at our disposal. This obviously doesn't mean blind acceptance, but it does mean we ask for a preponderance of evidence which peer review (sometimes) supplies. The system is not perfect but that is a problem with actors in it who are unfortunately human. Add to this the last para of Heather's response on whether we can ever truly know something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
