A GCSE in physics taught me enough to know that @lumbercartel is right.
also
“Science doesn’t know everything” (also “Science can’t explain X[2]”) is an argument that asserts that, because of science’s lack of knowledge about something, something else must be true. The implication is that, because science does not have an answer (or a sufficiently good answer) already, any claim can take its place, even though it has no supporting evidence. The argument is closely linked to the Science was wrong before and God of the gaps arguments.
The argument is overused by woomongers and theists alike, and is used to disparage the application of scientific methods to problems under discussion or analysis.
The argument is an informal fallacy and a prime example of an argument from ignorance.
The phrase “science was wrong before” (or variations thereof, such as “science has been wrong in the past”, “science is only human”, or “science is not infallible”) is a technique used in order to reject scientific consensus, especially on evolution and global warming. It usually works like this:
“”Alice: A scientific consensus has built around theory X and it is supported by many lines of robust evidence.
Bob: Ah, but science has been wrong before.The “science was wrong before” gambit is an example of both the continuum fallacy and the nirvana fallacy.
