Practical science is a subset of science as a general subject.
And, yes, in many cases "practical science" is both more useful and "more than good enough".
(Although I should point out that not everyone agrees on the diving line between the two.)
And, in fact, there are no such thing as "scientific laws".
That's just a word we use as shorthand for "really well established theories".
You are attempting to erect a bright line where none exists.
To use an example that is often quoted in books about probability and quantum theory.
The movement of individual gas molecules in an enclosed space is random. This suggests that, one day, you could suffocate because all of the gas molecules in the room where you're sitting could randomly decide to move to the other side, leaving you with no air to breathe. As far as we know this has never happened. And, as it turns out, the odds of this happening are tiny; so tiny that it is highly unlikely to happen any time during the life of our universe.
HOWEVER, TECHNICALLY, IT IS POSSIBLE, AND IT COULD HAPPEN..... it is merely very very unlikely.
Math is different because it is an abstract.
We can safely say that the math associated with Fourier's theorem is valid.
We could even say that we have never observed a sound wave that failed to comply with it.
That makes it a very good model which so far has never been found to be wrong.
And it means that it is a very safe assumption that it will be correct the next time.
However, it is
STILL a model, which is not the same as a fact.
I agree that it would be foolish to carry around an oxygen mask "just in case all the air jumps away".
But that is
NOT the same as saying that it is
IMPOSSIBLE that it could happen.
I absolutely agree that we should all note the difference between practicality and pure science.
For example, it would be totally impractical for me to try to turn lead into gold in my basement.
However, anyone with access to a nuclear reactor can do so rather easily.
Therefore it would be
UNTRUE to say "you cannot turn lead into gold".
(But it would be quite reasonable to say that "it would be totally impractical to make gold from lead".)
This is the root of so many of the evils we run into here:
Firstly and most importantly, there's the massive issue of what is "uncertain" in the first place. Much of what is categorised as "uncertain" by audiophiles is not in fact uncertain and when challenged, the more sophisticated and apparently scientific response is along the lines of: Science is all about theoretical models of reality based on observations, models which are imperfect and evolve over time in response to new observations, new evidence and/or a failure of prediction. However, this is only "apparently" scientific rather than actually being scientific because while this assertion is often true/applicable to many scientific theories, it is also sometimes NOT true/applicable and even when it is, it often has no affect on the practical application of the science. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that we're often not dealing with scientific theories but also with proven scientific theorems and laws.
For example, we might describe Fourier's discoveries and proofs as a "model" of what sound waves are (comprised of), however, it has not followed the path of many theories (such as the theory of evolution for example), it has NOT evolved over time in response to new observations, evidence and/or failures of prediction because in the 200 years or so since Fourier's mathematical proof there have been no failures of prediction and no new observations or evidence to even hint that it might in some way be wrong or incomplete. It's the same story with digital audio/communication theory, certainly the engineering practicalities of applying the theory have evolved but the theory itself has not, there have been no failures of prediction and no evidence which even hints that it might be incorrect in the 70 years since the proof was published, despite the fact that every digital device on the planet puts the theory to the test hundreds of millions to trillions of times per second. A similar but slightly different example demonstrates another part of my statement above, that even when a theory is incomplete and "evolves" it often still doesn't make any practical difference: By about 170 years ago electricity had been fully defined mathematically by Maxwell, Ohm and others but starting around the 1920's, it became clear our understanding (scientific model) of electricity was not entirely complete, it did not include quantum mechanical effects for example. However, this incompleteness only affects what happens in certain extreme conditions (such as at absolute zero for example), outside those specific extreme conditions, Maxwell's, Ohm's and other's mathematical definitions/proofs of electricity still ALWAYS hold true and there's been no evidence in the intervening 150 years to suggest otherwise. And (hopefully) most realise that the recording and reproduction of music doesn't involve anywhere near the extreme conditions required for the basic classical model of electricity to no longer be ENTIRELY applicable.
These 3 "certainties" cover most of the recording and reproduction of music/sound and yet audiophiles (and those who sell to them) still routinely misrepresent them as "uncertainties"! As far as the audiophile community is concerned, a far more pertinent "challenge" than "dealing with uncertainty" would be to gain a far better grasp of what is certain and uncertain in the first place!
Secondly, there are definitely some areas of uncertainty, particularly if we're talking purely about science in say the field of human perception but even here we have to be careful what we mean by "certainty"/"uncertainty". Do we mean we have no idea at all? Do we mean we've got a pretty good idea, for example a "certainty" that a particular perception is a combination of several well defined and accepted theories? Or, do we mean that we actually have an extremely high degree of certainty in how perception works/affects us (and therefore how we can manipulate it) but relatively little science which explains the physical/biochemical processes within the brain which accomplishes this task? For example, centuries of musicology/composition and nearly a century of film sound has given us a very good understanding of how hearing perception works and how it can be manipulated. Again though, many audiophiles are partially or entirely ignorant of all this. This is good example;
Most of that isn't a "what if", it's very well known and has been tested exhaustively over the course of more than 6 decades. Why, for example, do you think we record orchestras with multiple mics (and have done since the 1950's), when just two mics can capture all the sound waves that a member of the audience (in the ideal listening position) would hear?
And it would be even more foolish to not believe the science/facts that ARE correct, and then make-up false assertions entirely based on that foolishness! Yet this is exactly what we see time and again, even from some posters in this sub-forum, let alone the other sub-forums. Ultimately, what you believe and whether you personally are convinced or not is irrelevant, the science/facts do not depend on and are not affected by your belief, understanding or lack thereof.
G