I am not much familiar with the philosophy of science yet. And I have doubts about science and explanations given there for events. As I am totally inclined towards mathematics and logical reasoning I can't understand how I should treat scientific knowledge. As proofs there don't exist, there is only scientific evidence, so any concordant (non-conflicting) hypothesis as an explanation could be used to describe an event. It may be used as a correct reason for the event until something breaks the hypothesis or something better is suggested. So explanations "evolve" and it seems to me like a cheating with yourself. Because today when I read something with some kind of explanation like "atom has electrons moving around the nucleus" and find it reasonable, tomorrow it might appear that it is false. It means I deceived myself and accepted this explanation! But in logic such thing just can't happen.
Recently I started to learn electromagnetism and related things in physics. And those explanations with electrons moving from negative to positive side, etc. just don't make for me sense, because I know that one day it can be absolutely wrong and everything worked just out of coincidence or because of more general reason that contains current explanations as a partial case. And these thoughts really disturb me, so I don't even know how to approach science. What I can be sure about is a list of facts, that if do this and that, something will happen, but not about the reasons. Could you help me with this? What is the proper way to approach a science?