Much of modern technology is built on modern scientific findings. Since that technology unarguably works, the findings on which it is based cannot be "totally flawed".
That said, working technology absolutely is experimental validation of the underlying science on which it is based (if any).
The GPS receiver only works properly because we understand and account for general relativity.
The radio relies on a lot of stuff related to information theory. Which might be science, depending on how you think of applied math.
The screen and battery are built on a lot of materials science, which I don't know much of anything about.
.
What failure means when you try to consider your phone as an experiment is very unclear to me
A phone is far to complex and intertwingled to be a proper experiment; if it works it proves a lot of things, but because of that if it doesn't work it doesn't disprove much of anything.
If the phone works, it says "all of these things are true", which is a lot of information.
If the phone doesn't work, it says "at least one of these things is not true", which is correspondingly less information.
Those things are tied together. Someone who knows more about statistics and information theory could probably explain how a lot better than I can.
Just because technology that is built on top of science works doesn't mean that it is 100% correct. It isn't that our theories are outright wrong, but they probably still are incomplete or are only approximations.
Interesting you would say that. They were calculated and the orbit of Mercury was not predicted correctly according to Newtonian Physics. Using Einstein's general relativity, the calculations matched observations.
If any phone ever works, it means that some of the underlying theories might be true. Any specific phone means nothing. And a phone that isn't working has absolutely nothing to do with any proof.
Implementations of objects that rely on theories are emphatically not proofs of them. And failed implementations of those objects are not disproof.
Just following the analogy; what science was fire validating during that time? Just because something works doesn't mean it wasn't created by trial and error.
I'd also like to mention that I am a scientist, albeit retired. I'm wrong more times, by 09:00, than most people are all day. I have no reason to believe we are at some sort of apex of knowledge.
The other day, they released findings that showed they can mathematically predict quantum chaos. I'm still pondering the implications. There is so much we don't know, and that's a great thing.
https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-managed-to-fit...
I'm going to give it a serious investigation over the winter. I don't have the time to devote to it until then.
BTW, I never said we were at an apex of knowledge. I'm trying to quell the concern that what little we do know is somehow going to turn to mud one day. That's very unlikely.
I should also say that physics has a better track record than softer sciences. But even in physics, things change.
The geocentric model of the universe was equally obvious and functional to our ancestors in the context in which they used it. We are the same creatures as them and are subject to the same basic epistemological limitations -- just because we have seen further does not mean that we have seen everything. The whole concept of science is exactly to that point. It is implausible under currently available information that we could be missing some fact that would fundamentally change our understanding, but that is not the same thing as saying that there is no possible fact that could cause such a rupture.