My field is earth science which is, at its best, highly empirical. The stages are a little different: 1) Learning to observe and learning the basics of the theory; 2) Learning the theory quite a bit more and getting more practiced about observing with theory in mind; and 3) Hammering on, and molding or breaking, the theory with more observations or other theory.
Unlike math, it's just really, really difficult to ascertain that the theory is correct and it's never correct at all levels. I have always called geology 'the science of exceptions' because many of our laws are actually tendencies, and given 4.6 billion years, any bug or loophole in the theory will be exploited--and this is when you really learn stuff.
In practice, I actually think the three steps there are kind of fractally embedded throughout in the stages of one's career, one's individual research project, or the overarching evolution of the science.
Unlike math, it's just really, really difficult to ascertain that the theory is correct and it's never correct at all levels. I have always called geology 'the science of exceptions' because many of our laws are actually tendencies, and given 4.6 billion years, any bug or loophole in the theory will be exploited--and this is when you really learn stuff.
In practice, I actually think the three steps there are kind of fractally embedded throughout in the stages of one's career, one's individual research project, or the overarching evolution of the science.
It's pretty fun.