We cant even verify if these fields are real though. It is an ordered mythology for making predictions that work. If I have a machine that can reproduce the footprints of an animal no one has ever seen, I have not discovered that animal. (This is personally a more powerful analogy than saying "the map is not the territory" which gets at the same point.)
>We cant even verify if these fields are real though
We can perform casual experiments that are falsifiable against them. This is the scientific definition of real within a probabilistic framework.
Sure. Just making sure people understand that the "scientific definition of real" is based on a metaphysical assumption that real = works. It is very hard to remember this since philosophy of science is not taught in school.
Did you verify that we can't verify?
I think so. Are you familiar with epistemology and how assumptions can be formally justified?
Are you familiar with fallibilism? Aristotle justified geocentrism too. Who's to say your justification is correct for real this time?