We're planning to have a garden party in a few weeks' time. In case it rains, the wife and I have discussed whether we need to order a marquee to be on the safe side, and if so, could we get away with not ordering it until we know we need it. The wife said that we could consult the weather forecast a week before the party. I replied that the weather forecast is not reliable enough to work that far in advance. Thinking like a scientist she proposed an experiment: keep monitoring the weather forecast for the next few weeks and see whether it really does work a week in advance.
I believe this is what science is for many people. From the outside, it is not possible to see the 'dimensionality' of a system. An experiment addresses 2 dimensions, say, and if it 'works' repeatably it is declared that the problem is solved. But the problem isn't solved, and like the infamous
millennium bridge in London, another dimension comes along to ruin things. So you solve that problem with some more ad hoc testing and patching up, but without some pure thought - as opposed to empirical testing - you don't know that there isn't another dimension waiting in the wings. Nor do you know that you don't know ((c) Donald Rumsfeld).
It has been proposed that as long as an experiment has the so-called 'minimum hypothesis' attached to it ("If I do this, something interesting will happen.") it is still science. If so, I think science has got problems.