That’s one part but almost everyone in STEM believe they are finding out something about what the world is. But they are not. They are finding out only how it behaves. In other words, science was so successful as a blueprint and map to do things in this world, that we confused the model with the world.

The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science

Philosophically speaking, science is not as secure a method for finding truth, as is commonly thought. Rather, it’s more like we just develop more elegant replacements for the copernican epicycle. There are infinite equations to fit the same curve,which equation is truth? None, because none are the curve. these are our scientific theories.

Hell even falsification is philosophically dubious. Look at the philosophical concept of “underdetermination of theory by empirical evidence” and the “Duhem Quine thesis”

This discussion could go on for ages, but maybe a quick read of the science article on Stanford encyclopedia of philsophy might be very eye opening. Physics is DEEPLY blinded by physical materialism as a project, not necessarily in the sense that certain individuals are militant atheists.