Being a scientist myself, I deeply respect scientific arguments to support a theory. But sometimes, scientific knowledge gets in the way of progress.
Take Lord Kelvin, who, being a physicist, estimated the age of our planet Earth based on the rate of its past cooling. This only supported an age of 100 million years. His calculations were based on accurate physical knowledge as was available at that time, and he vehemently rejected the much higher age proposed by geologists, amongst them Charles Darwin. Kelvin had such a high esteem that few dared to oppose his view. But in fact, Darwin was closer to the truth than Kelvin was, because the latter didn’t know about radioactive decay generating vast amounts of heat.
Let me say this.
Or take the German Alfred Wegener, who revisited an old idea proposed by Dutch map maker Abraham Ortelius, that the American continents were torn away from Europe and Africa. At both times, the idea was dismissed by lack of a mechanistic model, until plate tectonics was discovered that explained the continental drift.
And when Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that characteristics acquired during life by an individual can be passed on to the next generation, he was proven wrong when Mendel's data were rediscovered by geneticists. Until epigenetics was discovered, which showed that indeed some experiences can be passed on to offspring.
So how many scientific views that we currently support will eventually be proven wrong?
Should I be worried?
A scientist must keep an open mind to novel insights. Prove me wrong, convince me with facts, and I am willing to change my views. But only facts, observations, data, estimates and calculations can result in novel explanations. So we continue collecting these.