there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't

there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't provide a productive framework for future research" That would be nice. Look at how much models based on absurd assumptions dominate epidemiology, a field you'd expect to have a biological foundation. The whole thing is controversial as hell outside the field because it very obviously doesn't work, but inside the field they don't care because abusing statistical modelling lets them publish lots of papers and get lots of citations. You could argue, OK, epidemiology isn't a hard science. Maybe it's actually a social science. But at some point it becomes tautological and the definition of "hard" science simply becomes any science in which you aren't personally familiar with the disputes.