It just isn't enough to point out factors are forgotten. If that were the case you could point out that as soon as a chaotic system is involved (like a human pr

It just isn't enough to point out factors are forgotten. If that were the case you could point out that as soon as a chaotic system is involved (like a human presumably is) every prediction goes out of the window if anything resembling a long time frame is assumed. Or you could point out unsolved problems with natural and real numbers that affect pretty much every single science. But for all sciences there's specific issues present as well. Stating these things is at best philosophy, at worst clickbait. It is not enough to name such a factor. One must point out and quantify, firstly, what is wrong, and secondly, how to integrate and model it within the field. When you've done that you still need to campaign for it to be included in the theory and textbooks and so on. Every science has it's known unknowns. Things that obviously matter but aren't in the theory because that's too hard, unknown, doesn't matter enough for the results or even just because important people aren't convinced it is important.