science or religion, page-30

Do you accept that no one should declare the science 'settled' on anything.

No I don't agree with that. It's obvious that there is a lot of science that is 'settled' - and that without knowing what is accepted scientific fact there would be no progress.

People would just keep testing and proving the same things over and over again to no purpose. Instead they can accept much of science as 'settled' and move on and build on that 'settled science' and discover new things.

There is in fact not a lot in recent times that has been accepted as 'settled' that has been found wrong. Some theories have been found to be incomplete and have been extended as new knowledge has been created - particularly at the frontiers of science. Like various ideas about space-time and continuing to theorise then find sub-atomic particles.

But the reason this science can progress is because of 'settled science'. Without that we'd be stuck in the 17th, 18th or maybe early 19th century.

The fact that much science is known or 'settled' doesn't prevent anyone from questioning it if they have reason to do so (or even if there is no substantial reason at first).

But I can't see any point in questioning 'settled science' unless there is good reason to do so - and I mean scientific reason, not political or ideological or just because you don't like the facts of the matter. And nor can I see any point in questioning 'settled science' without providing very strong evidence of why you think it's flawed or incomplete. No one would take you seriously until you've done that at least.