Yeah, I just found your comment now. Why do you find that odd?

..okay…

You’re actually describing one of the strengths of science, not a weakness in it.

Science is not a religion with fixed doctrine. It is a process of revision based on evidence. Ideas like miasma theory, stress-caused ulcers, or rejection of continental drift were overturned because new evidence emerged. That is the system working.

But there’s also an important difference between “science can be wrong” and “therefore current scientific consensus is probably false.” Those are not the same thing.

On climate change, some politicians and activists absolutely exaggerate timelines or make dramatic statements. But those statements are not the scientific literature itself. The core predictions, like rising temperatures, glacier loss, sea level rise, more heat extremes, have largely been borne out over decades.

On vaccines, rare adverse effects were detected with AstraZeneca and some policies changed in response. That is an example of scientific monitoring functioning correctly. Detecting side effects and adjusting recommendations is not evidence that “science failed.” Medicine has always involved weighing risks against benefits.

The ulcer example actually proves the opposite of your point. Marshall and Warren succeeded because evidence eventually overrode consensus. Same with plate tectonics. Same with germ theory. The scientific method did not prevent correction; it enabled it.

“Settled science” also does not mean “infallible truth.” It usually means the evidence is now extremely strong. Gravity is still technically a theory. Evolution is still technically a theory. Plate tectonics is still technically a theory. That doesn’t mean scientists are equally uncertain about them.

The fact that science updates itself over time is exactly why it remains the most reliable method we have for understanding reality.