About as many times as they have 'predicted' and been wrong about the
nature of their own science!
And if all those comparisons amount to anecdotal analogies - then surely
there is no basis for camparison between any human fileds of endeavour -
so we might as well stop the discussion.
It amounts to this, it seems to me:
You claim that (in the telecommunications field) we know pretty much
everything.
I claim that is (a) impossible to prove, (b) hubris and (c) most likely
wrong.
Interestingly, you seem to think that it is me who should provide the
proof. I would class my view as the more plausible, and the one which
most people would expect to be true. Since we differ, though, and since
neither of us is able to provide absolute proof, perhaps we should just
agree that there appears to be sufficient grounds for doubt, in both
directions.
Richard