I found this discussion on another posting site. It looks like many people are questioning the same thing right now.
G.

Honest scientists (just about every scientist I knew at the time) live in a
belief system that might seem scary to some. At any moment, they have
many working hypotheses about how the world works. Some of these are
supported by immense amounts of our human experience.

Maxwell’s equations, for example, in four short lines of mathematics,
provide beautiful explanations of why the sky is blue, why sticks look bent
in water, why electromagnetic waves, from light to x-rays to radio waves,
have the properties they do - and thousands of other experiences of our
world.

From quantum mechanics we can derive our periodic table of elements,
understand why metals conduct heat and electricity well, and figure out
how to construct quantum devices like transistors and electronics that have revolutionized our lives.

In fact, quantum mechanics is, I think, the most thoroughly and precisely
tested theory of physics.

But that doesn’t mean that it’s “true”. Or that “it’s a fact”.

No, quantum mechanics, like every other scientific theory is a theory. And
an honest scientist always stays open to the possibility that even a well-
established theory may just be a portion of a better theory, better in the
sense that it explains more stuff.

For example the classical Newtonian theory of the world, tied together our experiences of falling objects, the tides, and the positions of the planets. Two hundred years later, Einstein’s theory of relativity added to Newton’s brilliant work. Einstein created a framework that included Newton’s mechanics, but added subtle predictions that have found to be correct – that space is “bent” by matter, that clocks slow down when accelerating, and that Maxwell’s equations, which describe how electromagnetic radiation moves at the speed of light, are not flawed when one asks the question, “speed relative to what?”.

Despite all this impressive predictive ability, for me it is always possible
that our current theories can be improved, can be seen in new, coherent,
and beautiful ways that expand our understanding of our universe. Such a new theory must tie together everything our older theory was able to connect, but will include new predictions that shed light on or predict phenomena that we do not yet understand or have thought to study.

I spoken concentrated so far about well established theories, and hope I
have made clear how even such wonderful feats of our consciousness must always be considered potentially incomplete. One other thing I want to emphasize is how much all science, at any point in time, is full of new theories, about which less experimental testing has been done, and about which scientific controversy swirls. This is the normal development of science. Good scientists are comfortable with ambiguity and controversy about theories in their areas of research. To paraphrase Alice in Wonderland, they are capable believing six impossible things before breakfast. This suspension of belief is important in maintaining an open mind to possibilities. Someone who “just wants to know the truth” would find it pretty upsetting.