A question over the nature of science

Of course a question has sense in so far as it has an answer. As it help us, providing enough information, to find the answer. Imagine this scenario: we have two people giving the back to each other. They're ask to inform us if they can tell what the other person is doing just by listening, but they have the choice not to inform us whenever they want. We now instruct one of the individuals to make some action that produces an audible sound, for instance, drop an object over a table. I think the following is a question that has sense: How important is to know whether the listener heard the instructed even though he doesn’t react in any way or/and does not inform us of his listening? You obviously noticed that the question doesn’t address the problem of knowing directly. We may be able to produce a hypothesis, taking into account the general level of noise in the place we are in, the usual threshold for human aural stimulation, the neurology of attention, etc., about the listener situation. We’ll then proceed to interrogate our subject –analyze its testimony- and pronounce a verdict on our assumptions. What the question is demanding from us is to review our current picture of science to purport an informed judge about the importance of deciding hypothesis over insignificant events. What this brings to my mind is a general state where science can decide any question and has an elaborate scheme of how some particular piece of knowledge has consequences over other pieces of theory or over some practical issues. So, in the case the answer is “it’s of no importance at all” then, maybe, my general picture of science as an interconnected practical set of sentences is entirely wrong.