I am going to try for a difficult position here. I intend to question the current definitions of the boundaries of science. Scientists [generically] may violate the scientific method constantly in that many popular assertions made by science may not ever be testable. Cosmologists seem to be the easiest target...no offense intended. How can we ever reproduce the Big Bang for example? If we can never make one, and we can never test the theory in any direct and real way, it seems that by definition the theory does not qualify as science. Another example may be “dark energy”. What if this stuff cannot be made or measured directly? Could the stuff that dominates the universe exist outside of the reach of science? Have we ever seen a planet evolve, or are all theories of planetary evolution based on inference…that goes for earth also? Furthermore, it seems to me that if we are ever to have a complete description of reality, all theories must somehow merge into a directly testable hypothesis. It doesn’t seem likely that we can have a unified theory that fails to explain all of existence. If all of existence can never be tested, isn’t the greatly anticipated grand unified, or TOE or M theory forced into the category of philosophy…by definition? I don’t mean to be nit-picking here. I think this question comes with serious scientific implications, and more generally, it poses credibility problems with respect to public perception. Personally, I find the lack of confidence in physics - especially among many engineers – appalling. In many cases, the perception of the credibility of physics has already swung against us! I think this partly result from a heavily biased Newton-like perspective posited by some, taken in contrast to the almost metaphysical underpinnings of quantum mechanics. I’ve been reading and studying this stuff for years. Sometimes I can hardly tell where the physics ends and the BS begins…in either direction!