>In my view it is a good thing to prove the model wrong, because so many people take extreme moral and political stances on account of the model being accurate.

But this wouldn't affect thoses stances (in either direction). An EMH advocate can just (rightly) say, "Markets are efficient up to the limits of computation speed." Those same limits apply to anyone else's attempt to correct the market, so it doesn't validate view based on its negation either.