You have made an incorrect statement. Scientists work to understand theories by trying to disprove them. When they succeed, the theory is discarded and a new one tried.
Theories that have not yet been disproved are accepted provisionally as useful. Theories that have no mechanism for disproving them (such as string theory or gods) can be examined, but are ultimately meaningless and putting belief into them is useless wanking.
Hi Jock, I suggest that you version of Karl Popper’s theories represents a philosophy of science rather than a direct observation of science. See [en.m.wikipedia.org] It sounds good to some but I don’t think it adequate to describe actively pursued science or , even, your resonance theory. But that is just me. How does a person falsify your resonance theory, for example?