My understanding of physics is probably average. And though coming from an industrialized nation tends to make us pessimistic realists who discount extreme points of view, i wonder how valid "science" can be? Not technology, but science. Remember when everyone thought the world was flat? It was an accepted view. But science and everyone was wrong.
Good point! This is actually where a lot of people have a misconception of "science", or more properly the scientific method. The method is not an end product- it is a process for obtaining an end product. It's not very complex either:
1) Observe something.
2) Make a hypothesis about what the something is or why that something happened.
3) Make a test to determine if your hypothesis is correct or incorrect.
4a) Test successful. You have a good theory upon which to base the observation. Congragulations! Hopefully you can now do step 1 better than ever!
4b) Test unsuccessful. Your hypothesis was incorrect. Oh well, go back to step 2.
And that's all there is to science. The troublesome aspect is that far too many people wind up treating a hypothesis like a theory, and way, way too many treat theories as facts. One of the trickiest aspects to master is to always have a healthy dose of doubt in all things. Take those people who considered the Earth to be flat- they were wrong, but a refusal to even suspect that they might be wrong led to all sorts of regrettable actions, to put it mildly. It's thus very important to realize that any theory could potentially be incorrect, which is why occasionally retesting them is quite good.
Take the old science of alchemy- laughable by today's standards, it neverless managed to set a few theories. These theories were gradually built upon, retested, discarded, and/or refined by good scientests to produce modern chemistry. Even a mostly incorrect set of initial theories at least gave them a place to start, and the method of science led to better answers.