Even so, it's the most probable thing we can come up with. I'd like to see you or anyone else on this board do better.
The problem with all of your arguments is that you are saying that we cannot rely on science because we can't post a 100% probability sticker on it. However, the kind of science we rely on every day would seem arcane to the very edges of what is being done right now.
Take this analogy for example:
A mathematician, an engineer, and an scientist are standing in a dance hall. All of the men in the room are on one side, while all of the women are on the other. The men and women will advance exactly half of the distance to each other every three seconds. The question is posed to the three, when will the dancers meet?
Mathematician: Never, the sequence is infinite
Engineer: My model won't let them touch
Physicist: In a few minutes they'll be close enough
As you can see, the parameters define the theory, as they can always be changed, and at a certain point they have been changed so much that the theory is out of place. For instance, Newtonian physics has speed limits, and at those limits, Relativity takes over. This doesn't mean, that within Newtonian physics parameters, that it won't work at all. It just means that when you change the parameters of the system enough, you will eventually need a new understanding of it in the places where the parameters have been changed.
So unless your kids play brick factory with a supercollider in the backyard, or you zip through the sun on your way to work, much of the new science we have will not be applicable for a while. As you can see, we could also go to your hypotheses and change the parameters with the express purpose of testing their limits and then using our results to make them useless.
It's like the constant Pi, how many digits do you want?
-Penguin
