As I said before, the ancients were able to predict the motion of bodies in space--the ones they could see, anyway--long before Newton. Also, Newton's Laws wouldn't help us determine their motion unless we knew their mass. In reality, the process is the opposite of what you state: we agree that Newton's Law is correct, we observe the motion of bodies, and thereby we calculate their mass.
"Accepted science" is a contradiction in terms....Questioning everything is the heart of science.
Nonsense. Yes, science begins by asking questions. But at some point, we agree that one of the possible answers appears to be pretty much correct, so we "accept" it as accurate and move on from there. At that point, we can start investigating the details of how the accepted answer operates in practice, but for the most part we don't keep going back and asking the original question all over again. Doctors don't keep questioning germ theory; geologists don't continue to wonder what causes earthquakes; and biologists aren't still questioning the theory of evolution. Sure, some maverick might overturn any of those by re-asking the original question and coming up with a different, better answer--like Copernicus did to Ptolemy--and more power to them. But in the meantime, some theories are "accepted science"--as they should be.
The last thing I'll say is to repeat that I'm glad actual scientists don't feel constrained by the limits you try to put on them, or there's be vast areas of knowledge we just wouldn't have.