So I have formulated a set of arguments to argue certainty is not possible in science. Did I make an illogical argument here or like is there anything amiss in my argument?
Opinion: Science can reach an absolute truth, but we will never be certain of it.
Argument: We are limited by our consciousness. Every experimental design we construct is limited by our thinking. Every observation we make is made through the human lens. We don’t have the ability to detect unseen realities. Therefore, we cannot test if they are there or not. This is why we can’t be sure our model of reality is absolute truth.
Argument: We are not fortune-tellers Since science is prohibitive (rules out possibilities), some ideas don’t fit our reality, others do. We create theories and test them. But we don't have the ability to tell if the next experiment will prove the theory wrong. A theory that withstands all the tests so far could easily fail at the next so we can’t be certain that it holds. So certainty that our theory is absolute truth is not possible. This pattern of new models replacing old ones is a paradigm shift and what is common today was radical before.
Argument: We make assumptions Every theory we construct is based on a set of assumptions. For example, the theory of relativity matches really well with what we measure but it assumes the speed of light is constant which we do not know is true. Since we make assumptions which, for the above paragraph reasons, we can never be certain, then the theory built upon it has no 100% certainty of being true either.
Conclusion: So maybe a better way of defining science is not a process to find the absolute truth but rather a continuous process of modeling what we see to the best accuracy possible.