All scientific knowledge is uncertain, and that's why it's of a great value

Prof. Richard Feynman said that all scientific knowledge is uncertain. When I read this statement for the first time, I really didn't understand its meaning, but when I started conducting research in the field of chemistry I understood the importance of uncertainty in the field of science. Actually, uncertainty is what makes scientific knowledge different than any other field. The possibility that anyone can challenge any hypothesis, anyone can propose any rule, anyone can experimentally prove or disprove any theory, makes the field of science interesting and unpredictable. Anything, no matter who proposed by whom or how long ago can be proven wrong by anyone with enough data. This non-hierarchical aspect of science makes research a fun and exciting endeavor. Scientists are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty, otherwise, how can one dare to solve a problem which has never been solved before? How can one propose some new rule or predict some new theory? How can one try to find a cure for something untreatable before? This is why experiences with doubt and uncertainty are very important for any scientist or a science student. Science is as much about asking new questions as it is about finding answers to unanswered questions, this is an inherent feature of scientific knowledge. 

When Feynman called scientific knowledge uncertain, he did not even remotely mean that it was unreliable. Uncertain doesn't mean unreliable in this context, it just means that it is subject to change and nothing is fixed in stone. Now, this concept might be difficult to digest at first. How can something be uncertain and still be reliable at the same time? However, this can be the case, and if we look at the process of generating and evaluating the data in science we can very well understand how and why. Here, the uncertainty is not because of the content, but due to the process by which it is generated. The process has an inbuilt mechanism to challenge the status quo, encouragement to improve things and push the lines, start new frontiers, take up new challenges, and finally, try to prove things wrong, and this is what Feynman meant by calling scientific knowledge uncertain. Scientific knowledge is not static, it's in continuous flux. Once I understood this uncertainty, I really enjoyed my research and learned a lot from the many failures that I faced while conducting it. Failures, actually, many of them, are an integral part of every researcher's life, and acknowledging the inherent presence of doubt and uncertainty makes the journey more enjoyable and rewarding. Remember, this uncertainty is what stops from scientific knowledge becoming dogmatic. So, embrace the uncertainty and enjoy the journey of exciting scientific pursuit.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.