The question seems trite but it is only when forced to explain it that we realise the complexity within. In as much as science is what’s true of the world it is better thought of as a collection of transient truths which best represent what we know to be true at the moment. These are transient as they are susceptible to change, and indeed are likely to do so as we learn more. These truths are brought about through process of constantly trying to disprove our current model. If we were to hypothesise that there are only white swans we would not begin counting the white swans but rather we would be looking for black swans.

Once we accept the axiom that there is an infinite amount of information it is here where science serves as our best tool to disseminate a more accurate version of the universe, subsequently moving away from less accurate versions.

Humans did not evolve to rationally understand our universe, and to think scientifically is the act of recognising our imperfect human nature and make use of science as a tool to remove our many biases from the process of slowly removing uncertainty. A difficult aspect of science with which one must contend is that there is almost never a point at which “all of the data is in”. In some cases we may well have such a large amount of data that we are as close to certain as possible, but in others we’re simply working off of our best guess.

The feature of open forum of rigorous discussion is unique to science and keeps scientist in check. Science is the closest thing we have to a meritocracy of ideas and it’s basically the best way we know of solving problems, especially the existential ones.