[hamdani yusuf]

No they're not. Quantum theory for instance has cast doubt on a number of scientific principles and is therefore not based on them.

Quantum theory has cast doubt on a number of classical scientific principles. To keep calling it science, it must comply with scientific principles, whether it's classical or not. Otherwise any speculation can claim to be scientific.

[Halc]

faith is based on knowing and trust.

If you would actually look up the definition, you'd see that it was based on not knowing, or more precisely, in things for which there is no evidence.

Which of these things have empirical evidence?
DNA, atom, electron, photon, gluon,  graviton, anyon, tachyon, dark matter, dark energy, magnetic monopole?
what about multiverse and string theories?

The bolded ones have been detected. I'm unaware of a magnetic monopole having ever been found.
Gluons and gravitons are as Alan says: part of models with predictive capabilities.
Tachyons (and negative mass objects which remain valid since Newton's time) are valid solutions to Einstein's field equations, but none has ever been detected. Nothing in the theory demands that all valid solutions must have real world examples.

There's plenty of empirical evidence for dark energy and dark matter. The theories that posit them fit the observations better than any alternative theories. But that doesn't mean you can stick a bit of it on a microscope slide and take a picture of it. That goes for most of the other things as well.

Quantum theory has cast doubt on a number of classical scientific principles. To keep calling it science, it must comply with scientific principles, whether it's classical or not. Otherwise any speculation can claim to be scientific.

Even if those principles have been proven to be not all valid?

[Just thinking]

If you would actually look up the definition, you'd see that it was based on not knowing, or more precisely, in things for which there is no evidence.

I think you will find that there is faith in knowing if I have faith in something then I know it is true. eg. The scientist said the rocket will work I believe that is true I have faith in the scientist and the rocket.

[hamdani yusuf]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.

This was formulated by Max Planck:[1]

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
Informally, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time".

Eventually, the ultimate arbiter of disputes is the existence of conscious entities. It brings us back to Descartes' cogito ergo sum.

[hamdani yusuf]

Even if those principles have been proven to be not all valid?

Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science?  What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?

[Just thinking]

another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

Is this to say the truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[Just thinking]

Have faith my little one for I tell you the truth. Truth Truth Truth....

[Halc]

Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science?

From the wiki page on scientific theory:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.

Quantum theory is very testable and has been arguably the most successful theory ever. No principles need to be followed at all for it to meet this designation, only that the scientific method is followed.

The theory actually makes a hash of several classical scientific principles, demonstrating that fundamentally the universe does not operate under classical laws.

What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?

Neither of those meet the definition above. Neither is based on the scientific method, whereas scientific theories are. The difference between these two is that the latter makes claims to be scientific, and the former does not.

I had not answered all the items on your prior list.
As for string theory, it remains arguably designated as hypothesis since it makes no actual predictions to date.
No theory of which I'm aware posits a multiverse since pretty much by definition it is untestable.
It is purely a philosophical topic, not a scientific one.  MWI (despite its name and numerous pop misconceptions) does not posit a multiverse, nor does it claim to be a theory, merely an interpretation of one, just like any other valid interpretation of quantum theory.

J-T has gone into full proof-by-repeated-assertion mode.

[hamdani yusuf]

Quantum theory is very testable and has been arguably the most successful theory ever. No principles need to be followed at all for it to meet this designation, only that the scientific method is followed.

So, even quantum theory has to comply with falsifiable principle. Otherwise, it won't be testable, which would make it unscientific.

[hamdani yusuf]

The theory actually makes a hash of several classical scientific principles, demonstrating that fundamentally the universe does not operate under classical laws.

Alternatively, we've made some mistakes in interpreting some experimental results. We may simply haven't found proper assumptions that would make those results more sensible and consistent with observations on macroscopic objects, just yet.

[hamdani yusuf]

another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

Is this to say the truth is in the eye of the beholder.

No. The Planck's principle I quoted above doesn't talk about the truth. But the acceptance of scientific theories.
They are memes existing in people's minds. Their survival depends on their ability to help us as their media survive. Some minor mistakes may be tolerable. But if they're persistent, someday they would lead us to make wrong decisions, which in turn could cause our extinction, which is also theirs.

[Halc]

So, even quantum theory has to comply with falsifiable principle. Otherwise, it won't be testable, which would make it unscientific.

Agree. That principle seems to be implicit in the definition of a scientific theory, and is why string 'theory' is not yet in that class.

Alternatively, we've made some mistakes in interpreting some experimental results. We may simply haven't found proper assumptions that would make those results more sensible and consistent with observations on macroscopic objects, just yet.

The predictions made by quantum theory are fully consistent with observations on macroscopic objects. Classical physics can be derived from quantum physics, but not v-v.

[alancalverd]

Does quantum theory follow any principle that justifies it to be called science?  What makes it different from non-scientific theories and pseudoscience?

It is based on observation, explains observations, and so far accurately predicts further observations. The day it doesn't, we'll have to find a better one. That makes it a scientific theory.

[hamdani yusuf]

The predictions made by quantum theory are fully consistent with observations on macroscopic objects. Classical physics can be derived from quantum physics, but not v-v.

Can we use Schrodinger equation to describe movements of the earth's moons?

[Halc]

The predictions made by quantum theory are fully consistent with observations on macroscopic objects. Classical physics can be derived from quantum physics, but not v-v.

Can we use Schrodinger equation to describe movements of the earth's moons?

Yes and no.
No, 'we' can't do it because 'we' don't have access to the full state of Earth, its moons, and everything that influences them.
Yes, because despite Earth and moons not being a closed system, you didn't specify an equation for just the local system, so a full equation would describe those movements.
And finally:
Sort of, because that Schrodinger equation has more than one solution, so all you get is a probabilistic answer, and that answer is a description of those movements. No classic prediction could do better.

[hamdani yusuf]

Yes and no.
No, 'we' can't do it because 'we' don't have access to the full state of Earth, its moons, and everything that influences them.
Yes, because despite Earth and moons not being a closed system, you didn't specify an equation for just the local system, so a full equation would describe those movements.
And finally:
Sort of, because that Schrodinger equation has more than one solution, so all you get is a probabilistic answer, and that answer is a description of those movements. No classic prediction could do better.

Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics give pretty good prediction on the movements of those moons for quite long period. Given the same information, will Schrodinger equation give similar prediction?
How many solutions are provided by Schrodinger equation, if only sun, earth, and its moons are considered, and nothing else? Are those solutions packed close to each other, like Gaussian, or scattered spikes like combs?

[hamdani yusuf]

They are memes existing in people's minds. Their survival depends on their ability to help us as their media survive. Some minor mistakes may be tolerable. But if they're persistent, someday they would lead us to make wrong decisions, which in turn could cause our extinction, which is also theirs.

In short, good scientific theories will help us conscious beings to survive. But religion is useful in its own way.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/lucius_annaeus_seneca_118600
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/46351-religion-is-excellent-stuff-for-keeping-common-people-quiet-religion

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

Napoleon Bonaparte

It's like the use of Santa Claus story to keep children well behave out of parents' watch.

[Zer0]

Have faith my little one for I tell you the truth. Truth Truth Truth....

" I do Not Know " has tremendous possibilities.

Only when We Admit We do Not know a thing...does the Opportunity for Seeking arises.

Ps - I donno!
: )

[wolfekeeper]

Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics give pretty good prediction on the movements of those moons for quite long period. Given the same information, will Schrodinger equation give similar prediction?

The Schrodinger equation has actually been used to numerically predict the position of the moon and other objects.

How many solutions are provided by Schrodinger equation, if only sun, earth, and its moons are considered, and nothing else? Are those solutions packed close to each other, like Gaussian, or scattered spikes like combs?

I'm not sure, it probably depends on the boundary conditions and how you visualize it. In principle the solution could contain all possible orbits over space time. For practical purposes you have to artificially increase the size of the wavelengths by enormous amounts; the particles of the real moon has wavelengths in the subatomic size, whereas numerically you would probably have to use many miles.

[alancalverd]

Only when We Admit We do Not know a thing...does the Opportunity for Seeking arises.

Words of wisdom from a flying instructor: "After 100 hours, you know everything. After 1000 hours, you realise that you don't know everything. After 10,000 hours you know that you never will know everything." It's a good summary as 100 - 300 hours is known among accident investigators as the Death Zone.

And there's the difference: with religion you can make it up as you go along, because every religious prediction begins with "God willing...." so cannot be falsified by experiment, so you know everything right from the start. Intellectually, it's just one long Death Zone.