This reminds me of a couple of things.

Person A and Person B are arguing. Person A is fervent in his/her beliefs. So is Person B and they are opposing. The difference, Person A has more knowledge on the topic. This will often result in the perception that Person A wins the argument due to Person B not being able to fully refute a given point. However, the fact is that while the odds increase that Person A may be right, Person B could still in fact be right and only lacks the ability to prove it. Further, even if Person A was the foremost expert on the topic in the world, and Person B is a four year old kid with virtually zero knowledge of the topic, there is no guarantee that Person A is correct and Person B is wrong. The point, knowledge is virtually impossible (if not in fact impossible) within the constraints of current existence, only evidence and probability can point to the more likely correct answer. Ultimately, arguing and debate may prove to be of little assistance to show the actual answer and 'rightness' in a given situation.

The above applies to all things, even established science that we think of as having well established laws. As long as there is a scenario in science where the information available does not conform to the scientific law/theory governing the situation, there is the possibility that the law/theory is wholly wrong even if the math works for most scenarios. Ex: if you go into a physics forum and try to argue against relativity or that time and space are in fact separate things and that gravity only impacts the perception of time and not 'actual time' you will be met with heavy resistance. Some of it backed by argument and data. But ultimately, those arguments and data may mean nothing. Only further exploration of the topic will reveal how likely we are to be approaching the correct answer.