I see that and I'm not trying to pick a fight but that argument only covers 50%: am I allowed to not question my beliefs when they are held true by my experiments and observations? (Rhetorical)

Beliefs become religion when you have that choice to make and then you should absolutely not publish against your better judgment for any sum of money but work on your belief system. What I'm saying is that it still is not a requirement to science to challenge your beliefs because when you miss or omit that part your experiments and observations are still of scientific nature ergo challenging your beliefs is not a requirement to science [my original claim]. You're free to challenge them down the line with your own experiments and observations for me, giving me a chance to reevaluate my beliefs.

> am I allowed to not question my beliefs when they are held true by my experiments and observations?

You should at least be open to the possibility that further experiments and observations may come down the pipe.

Newtonian physics was great, until we invented better tech to spot things where it breaks down… and thus, Einstein was needed.