Science and Incontestability

There is this misperception that science is somehow superior to religion because scientific theories are modifiable. Why is modifiability equated to superiority? When people say that science is open to questions and that scientific hypotheses, theories and laws are open to change, what do they really mean?

As I have posited previously, science begins with the presupposition that there are some laws governing the universe, and then sets out to discover those laws. That presupposition is absolutely necessary for science to even survive. All our scientific efforts are attempts to find out what those laws are. Scientific process is iterative and uses trial and error. We look at the world, make observations, take notes, make some guesses, build a model, make further observations and compare the model with these new observations to see how accurate the model is and then if needed we modify the model and do it all over again. As our ability to observe becomes keener and more precise, we keep overhauling our theories to encompass details we didn't notice before. For instance, Newton proposed a model of gravitation. After three centuries Einstein overhauled that theory to match new observations and proposed a new understanding of gravitation. More recently scientists have proposed yet another way to explain the phenomenon that we call gravitation. Now these are all attempts to understand and explain the same mystery. The phenomenon in nature where everything attracts everything else hasn't changed at all. Only our model for it has changed from a hypothetical force to a hypothetical curvature of space-time to an exchange of a hypothetical particle. Gravitation is just one example, but there are many others. Sometimes one theory merges in another, sometimes one replaces another. But always, it goes from less precise to more precise, lesser understanding to greater understanding, less perfect to more perfect. This progress obviously begs the question, is it ever to end? Can we ever come up with the final theory or theories? Or is it an infinite progression to a never achievable goal?

Let's see what happens in either case:

1. First, take the case where such a final theory is indeed achievable. We know scientists aspire for a Theory of Everything. One fine day in the not-so-distant future one or more scientists might actually discover that theory. It would describe the entire universe in exact detail. It might be a monolithic theory or it might have separate parts pertaining to different natural phenomena. But either way the theory would be perfect. Science would reach its pinnacle: no more groping around, no more approximations, no more iterations. But if you stop to think, at that moment science would also become unchangeable. With that achievement its reputation for being modifiable would be forever ruined. How do you modify a perfect theory? Why would you?
2. Let's take the other possibility where a final theory is unachievable. In that view, science can forever update its theories but will never reach the end. The theories will always be partial, imperfect and approximate. No matter how many times they are modified and rewritten, they'll always miss something. While such a fate of science would keep its reputation of modifiability intact, it would also greatly weaken its reputation as a truth seeking tool. Why rely on something that is doomed not to succeed?

Unfortunately, those are the only two directions science can go. It can either find the ultimate theory, as many believe it can, or it can't. But no matter which one is true it does not bode well for science as it is right now. If you believe the first option is how it will end then you must agree that there exists a peak and science hasn't reached that peak yet. It's theories are still imperfect and its vaunted openness to change is not so much an evidence of superiority as it is a warning of incompleteness. So if your biggest argument against religion is that it is incontestable and impervious to change, then your argument is slightly hypocritical, because the moment science finds that Theory of Everything it too will become incontestable and unchangeable. On the other hand, if you believe that a final theory can never be reached by science and while it shall always remain flexible, it can never actually get to the bottom of the mystery then you are acknowledging that you are working with an inadequate tool. Note that none of these two conclusions are forced upon science from outside.