And yet you still don't understand that saying something is fallible, is subjective.. You can try debating this with me forever, and I'll never agree because I already have my own opinion. It's a very strong and justified opinion.
I won't say it's either fallible or infallible to avoid this silly debate, because it's a debate that means nothing about how science really works. Why argue about something subjective? It's not important.
The only mechanism that has folly in science is human judgement, and that is well understand in all sciences... even computer sciences. Math, equations, measurements, chemical reactions etc. etc., are not falliable. It's not fallible that 1+1 = 2, nor is it subjective. It may be preceived fallible if a human says, "2 is a number high in value," or "2 is a number low in value."
It depends on what is being valued.. and human subjectivity is also a factor. Not all humans place the same amount of value on things, very rarely do.
Even an objective, scientific fact can be fallible and shown to be incorrect or incomplete.
Incomplete is one thing... wrong is another. When has science ever had a fact wrong? Objective facts cannot be wrong.
1 + 1 = 100 is objectively wrong.. it can be proven wrong.
When has science ever had an objectionable fact wrong? When was science ever PROVEN wrong?
I already tried explaining this with Galileo.. it's always a theory until proven it's fact. The planet does revolve around the sun.. even though he was right, and almost died for saying it, it wasn't scientific fact until human technology advanced to prove he was right.
That was his theory during his life.. it was a theory because it had criticism, and there was debate. The only thing that ended the debate was advancing our technology. Now if anybody challenges the idea that the planet revolves around the sun, we can send them satellite imagines as proof of their ignorance.
Science figures things out for itself. You can't expect science to know everything before we have the technology to prove it right or wrong.. that is a unrealistic expectation to have of science. And knowledge is always incomplete.. big deal. People in the sciences have a natural instinct to ask questions.
Ask people like Stephen Hawking if he will always want to know more. He is a great scientists.. because he makes others think and question. There is always going to be more to challenge, to learn, and explain.. not having all the answers, doesn't make it a fallibility. Science is always progressing and new theories are always being written.. that is how it works