I know. By definition it's "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". But if something is believed to be science, and turns out to be false, was it not science to begin with even though originally thought to be? How do we know our next observations won't eventually be proven false?
I think Science isn't the observations and paths we take to reach the truth, science IS the truth. Whether we know the truth to something or not, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That reaction is science. Not necessarily how we "observe" that reaction. What if we discover something without observing it on purpose. Does that not make it science?
Popper thinks science is only something testable and falsifiable. But if nothing can be proven truth, how do we know exactly what we are observing if we're not certain what it is, no matter how much evidence? How is THAT science. There is an explanation to everything whether we know it or not.
An example to this is the question does a God-like being exists? There truly is a right or wrong answer to it, we just can't prove it yet. Either its yes, or it's no. It does't change.
I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Is science the observations made to seek the truth, or the truth itself? If it's the observations to seek the truth, does the truth become irrelevant to science, and only the observations make it science? Or if science is the truth, would the credibility to the observation to reach that truth not matter?
If you'd like me to try and elaborate my question more I will.