![scientific american string theory not even wrong scientific american string theory not even wrong](http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/string_theory.png)
![scientific american string theory not even wrong scientific american string theory not even wrong](https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/4534E365-AFD7-4AB7-93D58FFC58BBF781_agenda.jpg)
That is not a weakness but a strength, for our best understanding of phenomena will alter with changes in our way of thinking, our tools for looking at nature, and what we find in nature itself. “ ”Scientific knowledge is often transitory: some (but not all) of what we find is made obsolete, or even falsified, by new findings. So while it is true that several believed-to-be-true theories turned out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that theories that have already been proven wrong might suddenly turn out to be right. When used like this, the "science was wrong before" trope is effectively like suggesting that our observations that gravity is an attractive force are wrong, because one day in the future we might just see something go floating up instead of falling down, and therefore homeopathy works. Many alternative medical practices, on the other hand, have been carefully shown to be utterly ineffective in one study after another - no additional information will suddenly contradict these results. The usual examples of science being wrong (like the geocentric worldview that "science" used to hold) were theories that were in no way disprovable at the time, much in the way that string theory cannot be readily disproved at this time. Usually (or at least often) "science was wrong before" is used to defend the existence of a disproven phenomenon - alternative medicine, perpetual motion, crank theories of everything, faster-than-light travel… the list is really endless for where this has been applied before.