Are particle accelerators a better example for you, in that they wouldn’t actually work if 80-90% of science is wrong? Or is particle physics also actually engineering and nothing to do with science?

Anyway, my guess at this point is that we both agree on lots of the same technologies that actually work, just not on if general relativity or physics or chemistry are technically science or engineering, and therefore whether they would fall under the “90% of science doesn’t work” statement. Its hard for me to imagine engineering without a dependency on scientific knowledge, but it’s interesting that that’s a valid point of view out there.