>we can drive the error arbitrarily low by oversampling, which means repeating the experiment over and over. Sure, this operates on the assumption that all pot

>we can drive the error arbitrarily low by oversampling, which means repeating the experiment over and over. Sure, this operates on the assumption that all potential subsequent experiments that you could have conducted after your final observation also falls within your expected parameters. You did 500 experiments that fit within your hypothesis but the next 10 trillion experiments you didn't do afterwords could have shown wildly different results rendering your 500 experiments as simply "noise." This is a possibility and illustrates the flaw within the scientific method itself, it is however the best that we have, so we use the scientific method and its associated assumptions. Keep in mind the formal result of science has this flaw embedded within the correlation or causation number. However the qualitative conclusion is littered with assumptions. Probably the best way to describe our different view points is optimism vs. pessimism. That's really it. I'm saying it's flawed but it's the best we have, you're saying it's been remarkably successful "so far."