I'd change the word from science to empiricism, and there is no other way to learn anything. Empiricism is the interpretation of evidence in an effort to make decisions that effect desired outcomes. This is what scientists do, but it's also what every creature able to sense his world, generalize on experience (induction), and make decisions accordingly (deduction) does, and can be called informal science. By this method, I can discover what foods give me pleasure (personal knowledge), and also where and how to get them (public knowledge). This is empiricism, whether done in an observatory or laboratory, or daily life. If a question can't be answered empirically, it can't be answered at all, answers being useful propositions as described above.
Sure it can, just not all of it. That's the chief value of empiricism - to predict outcomes. The value of knowledge is to inform decisions and drive actions. Those actions then influence events in the external world, and those effects lead to objective consequences that modify experience in predictable ways if we do it correctly. We should expect similar decisions made under similar circumstances to lead to similar outcomes. It is in this way that we predict the future continually.
In fact, it is this ability of an idea to be useful for predicting outcomes that justifies us calling it correct, truth, knowledge, or an answer. The ultimate measure of a true proposition is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences. And this describes both formal science and the empiricism of dld say the problem aily life, like looking both ways before crossing a street to effect the desired outcome of crossing safely.
