Interesting concepts emerge in this article by Sean Thomas, link below.
The author does not really consider the opposite effect that for certain phenomena space/time results in more and more verification. Maybe the missing element is in the role that we ask science to play in a world that is evolving into / devolving from greater and greater complexity and structure / more and more chaos driven sub systems.
Is non linearity frustrating science? Obviously, the playing field is not even / flat. Proof is relative and can often be purchased by the wealthy, those in control. Does the tree fall if science never studies / observes it? The wealthy feel that it is enough to bend reality to their model, but they can more easily make profit by only allowing others to see what they want to show. Does pollution happen? No, it us a phenomenon of the left field.
Having studied knowledge, science, invention, and innovation, I would say that much science is relative. If you forget time / space your science is temporary theorising. It's important now to add that what works in one place in space time may not work in another. This is the modern dilemma that even the best most convincing results for a theory may neglect the tipping point, or as I would say, "Bad science is linear science." Bayesian method rules.... Personally, I think when we look at the life cycle of whole systems we are into a new world that our best science has yet to match by method.
