Science is predicated on the notion of falsfiability, meaning that scientific claims are always subject to possible criticism, change, and future revision. In recent years, the notion of "settled science" has become increasingly prevalent in public discourse, with many people demanding punishment and censorship for individuals -- including working scientists -- who disagree with the "settled science".

This naturally raises the methodological question of how to define "settled science". The scientific method is predicated on falsifiability, but if certain concepts, ideas, or models are, ex hypothesis, considered to be "settled", then such claims are not subject to further revision, and are therefore unfalsifiable. This means we need to revise our current understanding of the scientific method to incorporate a rigorous definition of "settled science", and the criteria for identifying what constitutes settled science. That being said, I have never seen any such criteria explicitly presented, so to that end, what objective logical, mathematical, and empirical criteria can be used to distinguish "settled science" from regular science?