Alchemy used to be considered science. Chemistry - the same science - used to have people concerned with ether and phlogiston. Apparently some physicians truly believed that it was aberrant for women to have a large clitoris; and still today, many doctors believe it's medically beneficial to cut off males' foreskins. etc.

Nothing you're saying is a disproof of what I said.

How do you know turning lead into gold isn't possible? Science. How do you know ether and phlogiston aren't real? Science. How do you know it's not aberrant for women to have large clitori? Well "aberrant" is subjective, so that's really not even a scientific claim, so science certainly can't be blamed for that. How do you know it's not medically beneficial to cut off males' foreskins? Science.

You can't accuse science of screwing up those beliefs: science is the only reason you know those beliefs are wrong. These are examples of science working.

This subthread started with me saying "Science is incorruptible. Scientists are not. Don't conflate the imperfections of the humans implementing science as being problems with science." If anything, your examples prove my point. What you've shown is that scientists have believed some wildly inaccurate things in the past, and science has corrected them.