That’s exactly how revision in science works; incomplete is wildly different from “wrong”, and most of our understanding of science would need to be fully wrong for aliens to do what is claimed they can do, to the point where we would have needed to get impossibly lucky in order to have built the things we have.
Because if reality works in a way that lets little green men fly ships across galaxies and secretly hang out with world leaders, then we’re incredibly wrong about how the universe works.
And the problem with just being okay with our wrongness is that it doesn’t match up with our ability to predict and rely on the science to complete complex engineering projects.
Here’s a math example: it’s like saying 1+1 is sometimes actually fleeb. Easy to imagine, but wholly destructive to the entire concept of math.
>And the problem with just being okay with our wrongness is that it doesn’t match up with our ability to predict and rely on the science to complete complex engineering projects.
But a theory can be false while still being predictively accurate.
Classical mechanics predicts that quantum tunneling should be impossible. But as it turns out, quantum tunneling is possible. So classical mechanics is false - or at least partially false. But classical mechanics is still predictively successful in a wide range of scenarios. So, a theory can be both false and predictively successful.
The most natural way to explain this is to say that classical mechanics is an approximation of a deeper, more accurate theory. Similarly, our current best theories could be approximations of as yet unknown theories - theories that allow for certain phenomena that are currently thought to be impossible.
