Whether or not you see it as a benefit or a flaw would be your personal opinion and I've stated mine. I view it as a flaw and it doesn't put much confidence in what we currently know if it will be proved to be wrong in another 50 years.
Our scientific theories are based on evidence. If the goal is to have scientific theories that are correct, then being based on evidence is the only way to do that. I want scientific theories that are based on the evidence, and if the evidence changes, I would want scientific theories to reflect those changes in evidence. You aren't describing any sort of flaw with science; you're describing how logic and reason work. If there's some sort of dogmatic claim that has been disproved by evidence but continues to endure without changing, that's a flaw in that system.
We have ample evidence that well-established theories like evolution, heliocentric, and germ theory will not change in 50 years. If you care about being rational, and if you care about evidence, then you must accept these theories and others as fact, because that's what they are. If you want to say science can't be trusted, then you're free to do that, but you're probably selectively believing the science you like and not the science you don't like, which is dishonest, and let's not pretend it isn't irrational and anti-science to arbitrarily reject proven facts like evolution and germ theory.
What I've described is the barycenter which you are still disputing. It's by definition that they orbit another. It seems like your argument is shifting towards accepting that (the benefit, not the flaw?), but it still hasn't reached the threshold of the fact. Maybe you are waiting for everyone else to embrace it so that it becomes colloquial enough?
Biden says “Science is discovery. Not a fiction."
I haven't disputed the concept of a barycenter. The problem is the solar system's barycenter is located on the surface of the sun, and in no way, shape, or form does the sun orbit the Earth. The sun orbits the barycenter, causing it to wobble slightly.
This is all also irrelevant, because you're trying to use heliocentric theory to argue for your points, meaning you've accepted heliocentric theory as fact. Theories like germ theory and evolution are also facts.
I agree with Biden that science is discovery, not a fiction. We have discovered that evolution, germ theory, heliocentrism, etc. are true. Rejection of these well-established scientific theories, with no reason to do so, is to embrace a fiction.
This will be my last post on the topics of science, unless there's a newfound relevance to this thread. I will see any responses to this post as an invitation for a private message from me.