Question

If a scientist collects evidence that questions the basics of a scientific theory, this means the theory is
Answer

flawed to the point of being invalid

going to be proven wrong

going to be refined by further investigation

not based on fact or evidence

Answer 1

If I go into space where I perceive weightlessness - "evidence" that might naively question the basics of gravity - can I accurately say that "the law of Universal Gravitation is wrong! There's no gravity in space!"? Can I say with certainty that "Universal Gravitation is flawed" or that "Universal Gravitation isn't based on any real facts" simply because I'm in a situation where it appears to be untrue?

If we see something that contrasts with what we already know, that doesn't mean what we already know is wrong or invalid. Science is self-improving and self-correcting when we collect more data and analyze what we find. Hope this helps answer the question!