Does Science Truly Represent Reality?

No it doesn't. You've missed the relevance of relevance.Things that are outside the realm of human science because they can neither be directly nor indirectly detected are meaningless to me, as they can't affect me. Regardless of their actual status, they effectively don't exist. They're irrelevant. And the fact that your response to the concept of an existent but non-affecting object will be inappropriate as your experiential sample of existent objects necessarily doesn't include any non-affecting objects (if it doesn't affect you, you can't experience it), disbelief is warranted regardless of existential status.Remember, having the truth is not in itself a good thing. And human science being unable to determine the existence of things whose existence is irrelevant to humans, isn't exactly relevant to humans. It matters not if a tool fails to accomplish a meaningless task.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

Through examination of how they've been defined.
If you define something as being outside the range of human perception, you've limited its sphere of influence to a range that doesn't include humans, which puts it outside of human science and relevancy. We can observe the effects of gravity. As such, it is within the range of perceptability. Unless they affect us, they're irrelevant. Hmmmm... nobody seems to be trying very hard to find out what the weight of my colon was 39 weeks ago to the minute. I wonder why that is.I suggest you examine why some truths matter more than others. By examining our valuation system.
If something doesn't meet our criteria to be valued, it is valueless.

Doesn't change the fact that only things which affect you are relevant.

Reality is irrelevant.