Science may be the term used to describe the human's observation and understanding of his surroundings. But what he observes and understand, the Laws of the Universe and its matter, would still be even if we didn't witness anything for whatever reason. Particles would still compose matter, planets would still circle around the sun, light would still travel at 299 792 458 m/s , and stars would still implode supernova style.

Indeed, when put against everything that we have yet to discover about the universe, we know next to nothing. But saying that we know nothing because it's all based on oh so flawed human observations and sensitivities does in no way mean that our observations and knowledge are wrong in and by themselves. We may have created our own language to describe what we observe, but that doesn't change what we do observe. 

The means by and with which we do observe and understand the things that surrounds us do improve over time and we do correct ourselves if we didn't fully grasp the phenomenons at first, or if we plainly made a mistake or miscalculation. But all that it mean is that our knowledge is incomplete, not non-existent.

Take the recent discovery of the Higgs boson at the CERN's LHC. It may or may not be proven to be the standard model's famous missing particle once more exhaustive tests and studies have been conducted. But the fact still remains that a new particle was found and oberved in last July. We now know it exists. We're just not yet sure if it is exactly what we think it is.

Also this: http://jayisgames.com/games/the-scale-of-the-universe-2/

well, we know enough about science, that we can build microprocessors that can play video games, LOL!!

But seriously, you need to know the laws of physics to build microprocessors. Building bridges, buildings, etc. Most buildings don't fall down by themselves, ya know.... Engineers say their profession is an exact science, so in some cases, yes, they some things....

And you know, we did send men to the moon and back....alive, that's quite a technical achievement.... 

You know....I'll actually second this. The big problem I always see is that science as conducted in academia is much different from the science presented in popular works. I mean....if you read a peer reviewed article, scientists hedge, qualify, and self-criticize their own work, which is something you often don't see in the popular presentations of science on tv or in mass market books.

In my experience, scientists are pretty well-aware of the flaws in their work and the limitations of the scientific method, and they take extreme precautions to ensure that their research accounts for these limitations (they also openly discuss these limitations in their academic work). However, when they have to explain their work to the public, they aren't very good at communicating the tentativeness and uncertainty of their work. Now, whether they do this because of egos, laziness, or just the fact that they don't really think the public is capable of analyzing the scientific process....I really don't know.

When presenting work you present hypothesis, results and the potential meanings of the findings. There is usually little time to be critical of the work when giving a presentation; it's just not the done thing. If someone wants to know exactly what the scientist is presenting, they will then read the paper themselves. 
However scientists are known for not being the best when it comes to communicating. However I would say that I've never come across one with an ego. The cast of Jersey Shore have an ego. Someone studying magnets on a nano scale tends to be less outgoing...

True.
Many facts are believed or accepted. Very few, perhaps just a couple, can really be proven.

The problem is that man has never accepted the reality he lives in. We need answers. Regardless if they are true answers or not. As long as they are answers we're willing to accept.

We know a lot but we don't know everything. Therefore not knowing everything means we really do not know how much we really know. Knowledge is an infinite. How can such a thing be realistically measure?

We know more now collectively than we did 1000, 100, even 50 years ago.

What will the next 50 years, century or millennium produce should the human race keep up it's progress uninterrupted?

Chances are the people of 3013 will look back at those in 2013 ( I would like to think read stuff similar to what is written on this thread ) and come to the conclusion that we were just an arrogant bunch that really didn't know jack.

That's certainly not true...

Almost all of mathmatics can be proven with actual literall proof. We are perfectly aware of the universe we live in and realise that there are laws to this universe which can be quantified. That is what we are currently, and successfully doing. The issue is that a lot of people are ready to criticise the methodology without actually understanding what is going on.

Exactly, it's as simple as understanding your audience. Regarding science, most academics udnerstand that their work is only good if someone can understand it. When the work is translated to be easily understood, there are usually some details that are withheld.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

I've never seen that video before; so very true and well said. 

What do you mean by presentation? Truth is.....I rarely even see material for popular consumption follow that strategy (hypotheses, results, findings). It actually tends to jump straight to the findings, partly because of the way they present issues......meaning they don't really address any single experiment. Instead, they condense the history of a field into more of a bullet-point presentation.

Also, I find it hard to believe that scientists can't find the time to address the limitations of their work in an 30 minute or hour long tv spot.....or a mass market book that ranges between 200-500 pages. I say this because there actually have been books that I think do this quite well while others do not.

In academia, I undestand why a presentation glosses over criticisms because these issues can be addressed in the question/answer session (I've still seen academic presentations address possible limitations/alternative explanations....depends on the time someone has), however, you can't do this with a tv series/book because of the lack of inteaction, so you should anticipate the questions and citicisms someone might have and address or mention these problems.