Can Science explain it all? Science attempts to validate certain claims by verification. Science is limited by its discoveries, and so is the process of verification. Can one dispose the idea since we haven’t yet developed a process of verification? If existing equipment cannot help gauge what is to be observed, can we say the observable doesn’t exist?
Science is indeed maturing and in the past we have been able to derive empirical equations from already established scientific theories to prove a conceptual idea which becomes a fact. A fact remains indisputable until new findings emerge. The empirical findings themselves are subject to scrutiny, they remain proven unless disproved. Does existence vacillate around Science?
Science definitely makes life easy. A basic set of facts have been established, over which we can make new discoveries, and with every discovery the base principal is reinforced. It is a good reference point, but that cannot enforce us into believing it is the ultimatum.
If anything is observable in nature, then it needs to be investigated. Nothing should be repudiated before its verification. If something cannot be proven that does not mean it does not exist, it also needs to be disproved before hailing its non-existence. It is as important to disprove something as much as it is to prove.
Would you believe the presence of certain fact only if proven by Scientists substantiated by research papers that you never get to read or would you go by the personal experience of the fact? If one could experience gravity, you don’t need scientific proof of it? Do you? Similarly what is use of scientific finding that you can never experience? In my opinion anything observable in nature can be validated by Science one day, till then Science has to wait, not the occurrence of these observable trends.
Science can only govern reality, it can't define.