I don't think I miss the thrust of science at all, Amos, considering that I began my life as a very scientifically minded young man, shaking his head at all the superstitious and gullible people around him who believed in fantastic stuff like...Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the immaculate conception. And I could go on...
No, I understand the thrust of science very well. I also understand that the scientific authorities of any era in human development are only prepared to see what they are prepared to look at...and in the manner in which they understand to be "looking". As such, they are as much mired in their particular orthodoxies as other people are.
They think "inside the box" of their usual set of beliefs about reality. So does everyone else...except the odd genius or radical thinker. It is such people who introduce brand new scientific theories at times which are "outside the box". Those people are often ridiculed and scoffed at by their peers who can't think outside the box.
As I said. Wait and see. New ideas will come forward which discredit the old. They always have and they always shall. Once a new idea becomes mainstream, people just take it for granted...and then they have a brand new box to think inside of.
I'm talking philosophy here, Amos. I am now questioning empirical scientific evidence, only the subjective interpretation of said evidence.