It was not my intention to imply that. You might have gotten that from my use of the word “falsifiability.” Falsifiability is a core component of the scientific method. In order for a scientific theory to be a good explanation of observed events, the theory must identify observations that could be made that would show the theory to be incorrect. Not only do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, they also require a roadmap to prove them wrong.
The point I was making (at least the one you quoted), was that the history of science is full newly observed phenomena.
Given the point I was trying to make, I would have to disagree with your statement. If people working in any field were to assume that they understand everything about the systems they study (by dismissing other possibilities as “meaningless metaphysics,” for example), there would be nothing left to study. To contend that we understand “those components” exhaustively is an extraordinary claim, no?
Western Civilization invented what we now call the scientific method. Francis Bacon was the first to attempt to systematize it, in the late 17th century (I think). It’s not really fair to say that before Bacon there was no rigor in science, though. As with most things, it was a gradual development, starting, probably, with Thales in the 6th century BCE (again, I think).