There is a difference between disproven and out of vogue. What is proven false, if the proof stands up to thorough scrutiny is unlikely to have any future value other than to demonstrate how some things that were once widely believed may be later disproven. These are some examples.
- The sun travels around the earth.
- Air, earth, water, and fire are the four elements.
- All propositions within a mathematical system can be proven or disproven.
- All natural phenomena can be placed in algebraic closed form.
Many things that were thought absurd have been proven.
- Mercury is travelling too fast for its orbital path to be predicted by Newton's laws.
- Humans can survive in space and return alive.
- Computers can accurately and reliably sort mail with handwritten addresses.
- Computers can be trained to generate pictures of interior designs.
However, very little in a Q&A community are theorem that can be proven or disproven though. Much of what is discussed is technique (in the Jaques Ellul sense of the word) that may fall into voge and then out of vogue more than once. Something that is thought to be obsolete (but not formally disproven) may rise back to common use or may return slowly from obsolescence over decades. Here are just a few examples of this toggling evident today.
- Earth is round -> earth is flat -> earth is round
- Vector graphics -> raster graphics -> vector graphics
- Ether -> no ether -> ether
- Turmeric -> chemotherapy -> turmeric
- AI via imitating biology -> AI via logic -> AI via imitating biology
Given the history of science and technology, unless we can flat out disprove an answer we cannot, solely on the basis of its current apparent obsolescence, assert that it will never return to the forefront. It is rather highly probable that some thing we now consider obsolete will become a key element in the furtherance of one of the sub-fields of Artificial Intelligence.
Others in the future may look back and consider us ignorant for our current belief that some solution or approach is obsolete.