2 Removed unneeded argument made and was more clear with my question
source | link

If, some well known and extremely well respected scientist of the modern world makes a seemingly unmistakable correlation between x (eating 33 bananas a day for instance) and y (ease in anxiety). The world starts to take on this correlation and seemingly huge success; the rate of people who claim to have y has fallen dramatically, etc etc etc. The consensus of this argument is that society is benefited by this falsehood

But it was all false, not due to malice or scheming by the scientist, but by a very remarkable chance in the logical fallacy of correlation and causation.

Someone discovers this, ethically should they not bring forward these answers, or do they owe it to the scientific community to ensure all theories proposed must be proven incorrect if possible for the best possible progress for science.

The circumstances that come to mind personally is that ofedit I went into some irrelevant detail about religion, and even the monarchyhistorical preference to a degree. For all intensethis argument and purposes; while no sound data was collected, people of earlier times where ignorance (Not to put down religion or the idea of godI derailed myself. My actual question is simple, just ofafter reading the average man lacking thorough education) was much more rampantabove, but people were happy with this existence. While the renaissance did provide a shock to the world and was seen as propsperity rising from the ashes ofthere is no scientific basis for the Monarchybenefits x provides y apart from widespread and failuresperceived reality of religion, if this progress has led people downthe scientific theory being true causing mass placebo effect in a pathlarge amount of a less virtuous life (Inthe population; Is it unethical disprove this instance, virtue being seeking happiness for ones self)or is this progress we want? Can we continue to put the righteousness and virtue of the individual down as we attempt to raise society up? it owed to the public to 'show them the light' in a manner of speaking.

If, some well known and extremely well respected scientist of the modern world makes a seemingly unmistakable correlation between x (eating 33 bananas a day for instance) and y (ease in anxiety). The world starts to take on this correlation and seemingly huge success; the rate of people who claim to have y has fallen dramatically, etc etc etc. The consensus of this argument is that society is benefited by this falsehood

But it was all false, not due to malice or scheming by the scientist, but by a very remarkable chance in the logical fallacy of correlation and causation.

Someone discovers this, ethically should they not bring forward these answers, or do they owe it to the scientific community to ensure all theories proposed must be proven incorrect if possible for the best possible progress for science.

The circumstances that come to mind personally is that of religion, and even the monarchy to a degree. For all intense and purposes; while no sound data was collected, people of earlier times where ignorance (Not to put down religion or the idea of god, just of the average man lacking thorough education) was much more rampant, but people were happy with this existence. While the renaissance did provide a shock to the world and was seen as propsperity rising from the ashes of the Monarchy and failures of religion, if this progress has led people down a path of a less virtuous life (In this instance, virtue being seeking happiness for ones self) is this progress we want? Can we continue to put the righteousness and virtue of the individual down as we attempt to raise society up?

If, some well known and extremely well respected scientist of the modern world makes a seemingly unmistakable correlation between x (eating 33 bananas a day for instance) and y (ease in anxiety). The world starts to take on this correlation and seemingly huge success; the rate of people who claim to have y has fallen dramatically, etc etc etc. The consensus of this argument is that society is benefited by this falsehood

But it was all false, not due to malice or scheming by the scientist, but by a very remarkable chance in the logical fallacy of correlation and causation.

Someone discovers this, ethically should they not bring forward these answers, or do they owe it to the scientific community to ensure all theories proposed must be proven incorrect if possible for the best possible progress for science.

edit I went into some irrelevant detail about religion and historical preference to this argument and I derailed myself. My actual question is simple, after reading the above, and there is no scientific basis for the benefits x provides y apart from widespread and perceived reality of the scientific theory being true causing mass placebo effect in a large amount of the population; Is it unethical disprove this, or is it owed to the public to 'show them the light' in a manner of speaking.

1
source | link

If a false scientific theory is seemingly 'proven', and contributes to the progress of society, is proving it wrong detrimental?

If, some well known and extremely well respected scientist of the modern world makes a seemingly unmistakable correlation between x (eating 33 bananas a day for instance) and y (ease in anxiety). The world starts to take on this correlation and seemingly huge success; the rate of people who claim to have y has fallen dramatically, etc etc etc. The consensus of this argument is that society is benefited by this falsehood

But it was all false, not due to malice or scheming by the scientist, but by a very remarkable chance in the logical fallacy of correlation and causation.

Someone discovers this, ethically should they not bring forward these answers, or do they owe it to the scientific community to ensure all theories proposed must be proven incorrect if possible for the best possible progress for science.

The circumstances that come to mind personally is that of religion, and even the monarchy to a degree. For all intense and purposes; while no sound data was collected, people of earlier times where ignorance (Not to put down religion or the idea of god, just of the average man lacking thorough education) was much more rampant, but people were happy with this existence. While the renaissance did provide a shock to the world and was seen as propsperity rising from the ashes of the Monarchy and failures of religion, if this progress has led people down a path of a less virtuous life (In this instance, virtue being seeking happiness for ones self) is this progress we want? Can we continue to put the righteousness and virtue of the individual down as we attempt to raise society up?