> What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. You can be wrong but state clear hypotheses and a non logically flawed reasoning th

> What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. You can be wrong but state clear hypotheses and a non logically flawed reasoning that allows you to make statements about the world. These can then be tested for their validity. What you claim is that the standard for the quality of the test are not high enough. That may be true or false however this is only one aspect of science. For instance many people misunderstand the use of maths in Economics. The point of using mathematical models is not to be able to make predictions about next year's GDP but to make sure that what follows from your clearly stated hypotheses about human behaviour is consistent.