Ok Carl .. I see the sense in which you are using a 'story' as an analogy for Science … and that's fine by me. Its not my cup of tea, but its Ok if its yours.
The 'big difference' for me, which I mentioned, is that in a story, one is aligning oneself to accept the 'words' of the story-teller. In science, one doesn't have to do that .. one can find out (by 'experiencing' it), for oneself. This is one way I use to maintain the distinction between science and religion. As soon as I think of science as a story, it becomes a religion ! (Aka … what's the difference, then ?). Its also interesting that religion has its roots embedded in a past, which can't be verified in the present.
What happens if a story has its roots embedded in the future ? I say that this results in the same as religion (or sci-fi) … and is then something that cannot be used to falsify something in the present .. this in my view, rules it out as a legitimate test of falsification of a theory framed in the present.
I have seen certain ‘famous’ pseudoscientists using this as an argument basis against useful present-day mainstream theories. I thus assume this to be what a pseudoscientist might do, when confronted with irrefutable, present-day, physical reality.
I must admit, I had a brain-slip in posing the question about where GR/SR doesn't work .. I wasn't even thinking of the (obvious) sub-atomic realm. Doh !! .. So, I’m cool with what you say on all this ... no worries ..
Cheers