This is a difficult discussion without an agreed on “Scientific Method”. I believe also that one can make the argument that some fields of science are advancing and others are in a crisis.

The foundation of modern science is Galileo Galilei’s analysis of observations to form a theory and select a specific theory over completing theories (Let’s call that the scientific method.) and his black box model technique.

Scientific Method
I believe most people understand and would agree what is the scientific method. There are, however, nuances to the method, as Galileo Galilei personally discovered with the resistance to his promotion of the solar centric hypothesis. The resistance to competing hypothesis is a topic in its self, as is how to effectively compare and develop competing theories.

Humans are not robots. It is very difficult for someone to change their mind concerning a fundamental belief that has been in place when a person is young. Science, as some have said changes with a coffin, as those in authority leave and new people enter a field. The key is new data or the rediscovery of old data that is obviously anomalous. Anomalous facts are initially ignored until it is confirmed that they cannot be explained by observational errors or by modification of the standard mechanisms. This is why there is a natural lag between the discovery of anomalous facts and mechanism/theory change.

In the field of astrophysics and cosmology more and better data is challenging existing base standard theory. Multiwave length observations of astronomical objects, more large observational platforms, and public access to large digital data bases is removing the practical barriers, which in the past blocked smaller groups or those who have a non mainstream hypothesis to investigate, from making a contribution to or possibly to overturn a fundamental component of the standard cosmological model. The posting of papers in arXiv has provide easy and quick access to new data and analysis. The papers in this field present logical arguments based on observations. There is questioning and challenging of standard theory.

I would expect due to the above that there will be a major breakthrough in the connected fields of astrophysics and cosmology in the next four or five years, which will resolve the obvious anomalies and issues in the field.

I would say in the field of astrophysics and cosmology, the data deluge has not made the scientific method obsolete.

The Black Box Method & Problem
I am not sure there is agreement in this forum or in the scientific community in general what is Galileo Galilie’s black box method. This is a separate subject and is a problem with physics. An argument can be made that the “string” or m-theory theorists are a symptom of the end of the usefulness of the black box model method. The development of 100^503 black box models seems to be more akin to alchemy rather than science. (i.e. Alchemists were intelligent. They developed specialized jargon, but they did not and could not advance science. We now that statement be a fact now because chemistry and physics has a deeper understanding of the problems the Alchemists were attempting to solve. Alchemy was a do loop that did not advance science.

I would think most people understand that Newton’s model was a black box model. I am not sure what people think of Maxwell’s model. It also is a black box model. As to the latest models, GR/SR, quantum mechanics, and the “standard” particle model, I am not sure what people believe.

I am not sure the “particle accelerator” experiment has advanced physics. The repetition of that specific experiment, creating more highly excited, very transient disturbances in space, appears to have not advanced fundamental physics.

I would say in the field of fundamental physics the theory deluge and the type of theories in the deluge is evidence of a field in crisis. Theoretical physics has it appears to me to have moved toward the status of alchemy. The scientific writer John Horgan created the term “ironic science” as a gentler label for the practise of alchemical science. Ironic science is practised by intelligent people. There are thousands of very complex models to discuss and develop. Thousands of paper are written and read, but the development and discussion of the thousands of models will never advance fundamental physics.

An example would be papers concerning parallel universes, two dimensional time, time travel, 12 dimension universes, or the 100 thousand papers published per year concerning what was formally called string theory and that is now called m-theory. An argument can be made that fundamental physics has become theoretical physics were the “theories” are not theories but rather black box models, toy models, complex mathematical entities, that have no connection with the physical world.