Knowledge, in any enduring sense, is not a collection of certainties but a network of provisional claims, each waiting to be overturned. Our senses deceive us, our minds interpret imperfectly, and the world we think we know is always filtered through perception and expectation. As humans, we must begin from a position of uncertainty, and perhaps the scientific method begins by admitting that uncertainty rather than pretending to resolve it. The brilliance of the scientific method lies not in proving what is true, but in discovering what can be shown to be false. The reality is that we are Probably Wrong, but we can narrow the field of error.

To gain any kind of insight into how reality works, we need to work with the things we have. Our experiences, though limited, appear astonishingly consistent in many areas. There are a lot of patterns most humans observe - objects fall, light travels, too much heat hurts. From these patterns we can infer regularities, and from those regularities we build theories. The value of a good scientific theory lies precisely in its vulnerability, the fact that it can - at least in principle -be proven wrong. Any claim that considers itself above the scrutiny of refutation is useless, as that means it doesn't create any observable real-world phenomena that could be measured. The point of the scientific method is to define the world in clear, direct elements, all of which are exposed to the possibility of refutation. The claims which survive this process are not absolute truth, but what remains standing after relentless testing, failure, and correction.

When scientists construct explanations, they are not weaving permanent fabrics of truth; they are stitching hypotheses that must endure the tearing forces of falsification. An idea that cannot be tested is not protected - it is irrelevant. The power of an explanation comes from its fragility, ie. its willingness to be broken. The beauty of a scientific idea is not in how convincingly it speaks, but in how precisely it invites contradiction. The keyword here is precisely, because with a good scientific theory you know exactly where and how to refute it.

Take gravity as an example. If we tried to explain it only by saying that objects fall toward the nearest large mass at a fixed rate, we’d quickly find contradictions. Someone on Mount Everest would measure a slightly different rate of acceleration, and our simple model would need constant patching to fit new observations. Each added exception makes the theory less convincing, revealing that we’ve missed something fundamental. But when Newton proposed that all mass attracts all other mass with a force proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to distance squared, everything suddenly fit together. Earth’s pull, planetary motion, the orbits of moons. That explanation was simpler, more general, and - crucially - predictive. Newton’s law of universal gravitation survived because it invited falsification everywhere: With its mathematical models it made predictions that could have failed but, remarkably, they didn't.
At least for a few centuries until Einstein. He found universal gravitation to be quite lacking and expanded on it with general relativity. These people, each in their own right, created models that people couldn't falsify even multiple centuries after!

The advancement of human knowledge works by cutting away at what we know is wrong. We will always be wrong, but by turning our wrongness into mathematical models that can be definitely, irrefutably shown to be wrong, we can learn and understand a lot. Our knowledge doesn't grow by defending what we think is true, but by going out there and testing it for ourselves.

Now, what science has got over other methods of inquiry is that it is self-correcting. Science may start as unsophisticated and “wrong” as things like, say, the Bible, but as the evidence begins to roll in, scientific theories evolve to become better and better at describing the real world. This is because all current scientific theory must always be aligned with our observations. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses will continue to believe in a thing, even if modern observations undeniably refute its claims. By acknowledging wrongness, scientific theories evolve over time and create models with extremely high predictive power.