And a common answer to any question seems to be "it really depends on the model".
So the fact that models are different and so the answers would depend on the model is... somehow an example of cherrypicking rather than just true? REers seem to struggle with the idea of understanding other viewpoints. One doesn't have to believe in a model to give the answer it would contain. Sometimes it's easier to do so, either because a thread is on that topic, or the answer you believe in requires much more in the way of required knowledge than you're willing to explain on a dime. It happens.
Do you mean that, for example, the discovery of quantum physics and relativity did not lead to re-examination of what we knew? That the Copernician model did not supersede the geocentric Ptolemaic model? The Copernician model or relativity didn't gain traction because it'd been around longer: it gained traction because it works better than previous models.
They really didn't work the way you are claiming, and when you have to go back almost five hundred years to give an example, it's very clear that isn't remotely representative of the current climate.
Quantum physics and relativity did not lead to any re-examination. They added to what was considered known, but nothing was actually
changed, they were only ever used to look at things already considered question marks, not to look at what reasonable consequences would have been for things previously believed. The scientific community was happy to leave those unquestioned on the basis of tradition, expanding ever-outward and never looking inward.
I remind you again of the OP. That is an example of what re-examining actually looks like. When a new discovery is made, you find something in a related field that already has a supposed explanation, and you see if there would be any knock-on effects from the newly discovered theory. Science however is not concerned with that, it never discards, just tweaks, just appends, relativity is only used to add, not take away. QFT is only used to add, not take away. Everything is founded upon the religious belief that all that is known is fact and beyond question, no matter what major new discoveries there are that ought to have effects.
As you put it:
"If tomorrow someone comes with a new theory that updates Einstein's relativity, it will have to be compatible with all the many cases that relativity correctly predicts, just like relativity had to be compatible with all the cases that work with Newtonian mechanics."
Just add. Never re-examine.
You are working under the false premise that accurate calculations means truth. As I said, that isn't how it works. Yes, Newtonian physics were used to create equations to predict eclipses. That didn't happen in a vacuum. It would not have happened without recorded facts and figures from how often eclipses occur.
Those are what predicted the eclipses. If it hadn't worked, they'd have tweaked the values until it did. All that can actually be read from this is that at best they mostly knew what the variables were, ie the relative speed of the moon and Sun. Big deal.
I liken it to cosmological constants. Under RET, there are a handful of numbers that govern everything in the universe. If any one of them is tweaked a little, stars won't form, or matter would collapse, any number of things like that, life wouldn't exist. But if all of them were changed at random, rather than altering one just slightly, and you'll be able to find a completely different set-up that still allows for life. I believe Victor Stenger wrote on that.
The scientific community is geared towards only allowing small changes. If you try to build to something larger, you'd fail, small oddities get swallowed up by some other hypothesis and by the time you want to build upon that small tweak, it's considered part and parcel of the mainstream and nothing to build from. It is categorically impossible for the scientific community to change consensus in any significant fashion without major overhaul.
What exactly is science failing to do that you are so upset about all the experimenting going on?
I'm not upset. I was answering an idle question of yours on an offhand remark while waiting for someone to actually address my OP, which now looks like it's just never going to happen because all REers are apparently physically capable of doing is ignoring what I said and lying about it.
I said several times over I'm fine with experiments, and encouraged doing so. My objection was only the belief that it was the only way to compare models, when you can also compare quality and quantity of assumptions. A fact you, as ever, ignored. You are lying to my face again, and it is genuinely disgusting the ease with which you do it.