If you compare real science with science theory, and if you do it carefully and slowly, you will find that true science doesn't match science theory.
Regarding engineering, a developer may develop some practical device off some science theory, but when you critically examine the engineered development against the science theory, you will find that the development has all kinds of tiny departures from what the science theory says.
If an engineered development uses practical proven science, often it will use pieces of science that are not included in the abstract of why and how it works, scientifically.
The point is moving forward. The point should be defining the various levels of science properly, so that we can see the differences between what science really is... and often, what it is not.
well an out of date and debunked theory is not science. especially if the theory is made by someone that does not specialise in the topic the theory he makes concerns
take badeckers influencers they have no practical hands on scientific experience of the topics that make theories about. so in badeckers own request above. he should not be automatically considering their theories as science..
koffman has no virology or vaccine experience.. thus. badecker just debunked his favourite influencer
in short badecker just debunked his own influencers
...
anyway back on topic.
science is not an end result.. take for instance if we were to solve the mysteries of the high level of the solar system. once working out the solar system you can then use that to look at the mid level of planets and moons. and the low level of smaller parts.
cern is looking at the low levels of the energy that make up the parts that make a atom.. next would be the wave research that make the energy