Arguments as some pose, that use past mistakes on various consensus science ideas of the past to cast doubt on any science, doesn't bear on the value of the scientific method to understand phenomenon, but rather reflects on a misunderstanding of how science works. There is a tendency for science news media to sometimes overemphasize controversial viewpoints as settled or overwhelmingly so, that ordinary non-science educated persons then absorb as dogma. In this Internet era, the savvy educated person can however easily dig deeper via the web.
There are a great many science ideas and parts of "theories" that we can confidently state as absolute facts. For instance, we can state that mass causes attraction through gravity as a certainty without that meaning all aspect of ideas of what gravity is and does are valid. And abstractly 2 plus 2 equals 4 with absolute certainty.
The Big Bang Theory and quite a lot of cosmology falls into that relative category, often because ordinary people like to believe experts and authorities know what they are talking about even though if most like Stephen Hawkings were directly asked about whatever, they themselves would answer in relative ways. And years later, media would blurt out they were rigidly wrong.
That noted, it is true there will always be some supposed experts, that will speak in absolute ways like a bulldog guarding a bone. One group of scientists where that tends to occur more is with those in teaching positions at top universities. When what they have been teaching others as strong truths are later found to not be, some are obviously going to be defensive about having thought so rigidly teaching others so. Live and learn.
This same human behavior isn't new nor an issue with just science. It is especially glaring with many Christian religion dogmatic ideas, like Noah's Ark being a worldwide flood or Adam and Eve being the first homo sapiens, that have in recent decades with the rise of science, been shown to be obviously ridiculous.
During my own lifetime, some of my own science leanings that were once considered fringe, are now much more mainstream such that rigid detractors can no longer use mere ridicule to dismiss ideas over. Panspermia and electromagnetic brain theories are two.
--------------------------
Google AI Overview:
Past scientific mistakes don't reduce the value of good science
because they are a normal and necessary part of the scientific process. Science progresses by self-correction, where new evidence and observations allow theories to be refined and corrected. Mistakes can be valuable, as they help scientists identify what doesn't work and can guide them toward the right path, a concept central to the scientific principle of falsifiability.
Why past mistakes are not a detraction from good science
Mistakes are a feature, not a bug: The history of science is filled with wrong turns and mistakes. Recognizing and correcting errors is a core part of how science improves and learns over time.
Self-correction drives progress: The scientific method is built on the idea of learning from errors. When new experiments or observations contradict old theories, it forces a re-evaluation and refinement of the existing knowledge.
Errors help focus future research: By learning what is incorrect, scientists can avoid wasting resources on the same wrong paths. A failed experiment can provide valuable data on what doesn't work, which is a crucial piece of the puzzle.
** Falsifiability is a scientific ideal:** A good scientific theory must be capable of being proven wrong under certain conditions. This risk is what makes the eventual proof of a correct theory so powerful, and the process of trying to falsify a theory is what refines our understanding.
New technology reveals past errors: As technology improves and instruments become more precise, new data can emerge that contradicts previous understanding, leading to corrections of long-held beliefs.
In short, science is not a perfect, linear path to truth, but an iterative process of hypothesis, testing, and revision. Mistakes are not failures but learning opportunities that ultimately strengthen the scientific understanding of the world.
