So many science deniers, pseudo science advocates, and religious apologists try to claim that Science has "made mistakes"
They imply that since science isn't always right, so all of it is subject to suspicion, and their hypothesis is clearly correct because its easier to understand.
Statements like, "I simply can't believe that everything in the universe fit into something smaller than a pinhead," are nothing more than an argument from ignorance, or an argument from incredulity fallacy.
If we take reality to be a single location in a 3 dimensional universe. We could label it the "truth" as so many love to do; you'll have pseudoscience, and religion shooting off in very random nonsensical directions. They don't really understand what direction their belief has them heading in, they simply accept it because they think its oh so much easier to understand than say..... Math.
On the other hand you have science, science doesn't fire off in a direction, instead its more like a spiral, always self correcting, and challenging itself to become more accurate over time until it will eventually and inevitably reach it's destination. Through self correction, always increasing accuracy, and following the evidence that can be demonstrated, we can be reasonably confident we will end up in the right location. These are the only reasons science is reliable. It is also what the other "methods" that attempt to work out the universe lack.
Now in reality there is no plot-able "truth" the world just isn't that simple, its a silly notion people buy into that there's one easy to understand "truth" that explains "everything." It's effectively meaningless gibberish, and people over simplifying things like this are another part of the problem. To me the world is filled with nuisance, anyone who seems to see things in "black and white" are automatically suspect to me. The answer to most questions is "Yes and no," it's sad that people hate that answer so much. I understand they hate it cause they don't want to think, they want a simple yes or no so they won't have to learn, grow or work at understanding anything.
Regardless of the pseudoscience woo factor being peddled i inevitably get reminded of the young earth creationist saying "LOOK AT PILTDOWN MAN," not realizing that piltdown man is in fact evidence that science works. If you point out something that seems to be a mistake, or something in which science hasn't "found evidence for yet," think about Evolution example. in the early days people also said there was "no" evidence for evolution, ignoring that the evidence did in fact point towards it. They made claims that there were "No missing links" and early on they were correct, but given time and continually improving methodology, missing links were provided. Even after such evidence was provided, and demonstrated to be reality, they still insist on ignoring the facts. In order to fight against a round earth, or cosmology, one would have to ignore TONS of evidence pointing in the direction scientists currently operate in. People may site one or two failed experiments when in reality it bears no significant meaning at all, we already know we're looking in the correct general direction based on what we DO know to be factual. So trying to point to one or two things that have not yet been explained does NOT automatically mean we should throw the whole thing out. Nor is it cause to be suspect of the entire thing.