Correct me if I’m wrong, but from a laypersons perspective how I see it is that there are varying degrees of certainty in science. The empirical, i.e., observational and experimental, is objective and when confirmed is pretty much considered as fact and accepted without debate. The theoretical is subjective and can be and should be disputed until confirmed by direct observation of some kind, or it can be shown that almost all the evidence that can be available is, and that it is decidedly on the side of the theory.
If I’m not mistaken deductive inferences are based on direct evidence and are objective in nature. Inductive inferences are based on an overwhelming amount of indirect evidence in favor of a claim that, though subjective, leaves very little, if any, room for doubt about its truth.
Abductive inferences are based on limited evidence where there is still a substantial amount of information that isn’t available either because a way has yet to be devised for further exploration, or due to it being beyond human limitations, which leaves considerable room for debate as to the best explanation of the limited evidence, and is therefore the most subjective type of reasoning.
Now when you say “as close to 100% as is possible in the sciences,” I find that too ambiguous of a statement to deal with. My limited understanding is that the uncertainty principal and the observation of oscillation patterns of energy fields are involved in positing the temporary violation of the law of conservation of energy.
What I would like to know first is, what other evidence is there besides a principal, i.e., confirmed mathematical formula, and oscillation patterns of energy fields? And correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming besides indirectly, e.g., through oscillation patterns, there is no direct observation of an actual occurrence of the proposed violation, but that it is wholly theoretical at this point in time.
(This may be getting a bit off topic?)