"We live in a culture of casual certitude. This has always been the case, no matter how often that certainty has failed. Though no generation believes there’s nothing left to learn, every generation unconsciously assumes that what has already been defined and accepted is (probably) pretty close to how reality will be viewed in perpetuity. And then, of course, time passes. Ideas shift. Opinions invert. What once seemed reasonable eventually becomes absurd, replaced by modern perspectives that feel even more irrefutable and secure—until, of course, they don’t."

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27068734-but-what-if-we-r...

Yes. We were, are and will always be living in "modern times"...

You might consider the The Relativity of Wrong:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Sure, maybe we know jack shit. But we know unfathomably more jack shit than in previous ages.

> That's funny, Afaik quarks still confuse physicists because they behave erratically and appear to be composed of other particles.

I'd really like a source for the composite quark claim.

Well, String Theory.

Couldn't have given a worse answer.

1. String theory has no experimental backing.

2. It doesn't posit that currently fundamental particles become composite.

For a decent explanation see:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38767/relation-b...

What evidence is there for quarks being composite?