Clearly, you misunderstood...When I say that "science has been proven wrong", I mean not that the concept of science was proven wrong, but that at any given point in its "evolution" the underlying "beliefs" that make up its existence (yes, they are beliefs, not facts) have been shown by a more recent version of science to be blatant falsehoods...The fact that there still does not exist any one "version" of reality that has been discovered by "science" that can still hold up to any "scientific" testing is a pretty good indication that "science" still hasn't given us anything except for a vague way to describe a mind-blowingly small portion of the known universe (here's a good contribution from "science"). Blind belief in religion is no different than blind belief in the validity of physics, and it's obvious, when you have to keep coming up with different theories to explain why our current physics doesn't to describe that which lies outside the finite range of human experience.

You seem to be claiming that I am saying that no "science" has any meaning or use whatsoever, and that's simply not the case. Real scientists will use science as a tool to attempt to better understand the world around them and the universe, without turning it into a religious fanticism. A real scientist will know that the equations he uses are just a guide to help him predict the behavior of most of the common things he can perceive...But he must also realize that this science, as you say, is a process--a very young process, and has not included in its vast, blanketing reach something so simple as why apples fall to the ground...

Just because certain phenomena cannot be measured with our numerous instruments that can detect every kind of radiation in the universe or across every dimension that has been "proven" to exist (how many are there now? I've lost track..10? 11? 26?), simply does not mean that these phenomena don't exist.

As for Occam's Razor, it's more of an interesting idea than a theory to base your life around. Like I said, perception is learned, and Occam's Razor is totally subjective.

And the "you" in my post was directed towards Korittke, because I thought I might get a good argument from him, so I'll ignore the last bit.