A short mathematical explanation of the limits to Science
First, to be accurate the word "wrong" should really be replaced by the words "just not right". The word "wrong" was chosen for brevity.
(This very small essay is more or less a work-in-progress, being edited and reworded once in a while. As per August 2021 it has been so for an unknown period, at least a few years.)
The scope of Science as such is universal meaning that Science (if "animated") could be said to have an ambition to "understand" the full Universe and everything in (and, if possible, about) it. In other words; to collect all available "scientific knowledge" or "information".
If we liken this "ambition" to a trip from "Point A" to "Point B" we would probably also think that a sane traveller would like to consider the factual properties of such a trip in order to know a little about the probability of actually completing said trip. And, not least, the feasibility of even embarking on it.
So, let there be math:
It should be extremely clear from the above that our "traveller" does not have any chance what so ever of making the trip to "Point B". Our traveller will forever be stuck at "Point A" no matter how much effort is spent, and no matter how long the journey is perceived to be.
As a thought experiment, let's imagine that the entire "scientific ambition" was to do a foot trip from the lobby of one specific casino in Las Vegas all the way around the Earth. Then, in spite of using his/her whole life travelling the traveller would end up having travelled only inside that very same casino lobby. Of course the traveller would probably have gained a wealth of information from the very rigorous, and ever-changing experience that a life-long examination of a casino lobby would be, but what and how much would the traveller really get to know about the Earth as-a-whole from this trip?
Not much. It would probably not be wrong to suggest: nothing. Also, it would probably not be wrong to suggest that the only things the traveller would ever experience would be exceptions-to-the-rule and not anything really, fundamentally, "true" or "real". Or, that he would have spent is whole journey in an isolated, very remote and distorted, version of reality - not in the real world itself.
And then, ultimately the traveller died anyway having spent all his/her energy and ressources travelling. So nobody else had any benefit. Let's hope that at least our traveller enjoyed the journey.
The compound mass of all scientific knowledge gathered throughout all times will always remain an infinitely small part of all knowledge. This equals zero knowledge. Zero. In other words: everything Science will ever find are random exceptions, saddle points, and corner-cases no matter how robust the results will seem 'at the moment'.
The case here is not really that you cannot trust Science on a day-by-day basis, more that as seen in a much longer (and wider) perspective that (a) Science will never be able to tell "the full story", and (b) whatever Science will ever "prove" will be disproved somewhere else, sooner or later.
It would not be wrong to say that the full amount of information that Science will ever discover is equal to zero information. And it takes a very brief bit of math to say just that.
Relative to infinite information any given piece of information / knowledge is, in fact, zero information. Also, this ''moment'' -- even if it should last millions of human years -- will always be an insignificant and infinitely small moment in the great scheme of things. Relative to infinity any random duration of time is zero.
Given infinity there is no truth, neither here nor out there. Neither today nor any other day.
This is math. A.k.a. Science. Which implies...
All of the above is posted for entertainment value only. This is not a Scientific paper.