I see I hit a nerve, and that is not the intention, Richard. It is not that scientists are not good at their work; it is that they are not good at thinking about the larger structures in which their work is found.

Therefore, it is the edge of Science where scientists are not formulating themselves well. And they could not because they were not trained well to do so.

Just so I don't "ramble" more, here are bullet points.

* The Scientific Realm is always larger than the Scientific Reach.

* Investigating the result to understand how the result came to be is automatically a fallible action in light of the big picture.

* Structural thinking is not prime in Science education.

* You missed the mark when you say how I see "physical science failing in its descriptions of new discoveries". I have no idea who said that, but I did not.

* My physics teacher taught me more than 45 years ago that most scientists do not have a good understanding of the word theory. I learned that he was correct. Most scientists do NOT know the full meaning of the word theory and many think the Scientific Method is somehow the only location where this word exists within the Scientific Realm.

* Theory = Fact(s) + Hypothes(is/es)

* Science starts with the facts and then theorizes about the facts. But... when scientists build theory upon theory upon theory then they can end up far removed from the facts, and when not careful they even incorporate beliefs that they do not recognize as beliefs. A big no-no in science.

* I respect scientists for their work. Never get me wrong on this. But I see where they are not good enough, and when I tell that in honest words, they don't relent their positions but immediately come out swinging.

Thank you for your further response. I appreciate it.