Everyone takes a 2000+ year old book written by idiots in a desert as "100% fact."
I like HiProfile's example.
His ideas are theories. He's not passing them off as truth, and says himself we are just beginning to find the "truth" and may never find the complete truth. A lot of what he talks about isn't provable yet, and may never be, but they shouldn't be disregarded. He IS a quantum physicist and there is a lot of factual information he bases his theories on. People take these theories and expand on them, and so does he which is why his ideas change.
There's nothing wrong with being wrong when you're willing to accept and change your view as more information becomes available. There IS something wrong with saying something is wrong without providing proof of why. A good example is the whole "earth is flat" theory that existed for... centuries? He should continue with his "incorrect" theories because they are more logical and factual than anyone here and most of the world could come up with, and they offer a foundation for others to continue theorizing from. Figuring shit out is a process, and creating a theory based on the limited clues you have gives a direction of where to look for the next clue.
He admits the obvious, that we are only barely beginning to understand these things, and he restructures his theories when necessary. If people take it as truth, that's their own problem, and I don't see how it makes him someone that should be disregarded?