Wow. You have totally misunderstood science.
Science is when you use observations and theories and predictions. As you get new observations they form better theories and better predictions. Suppose you only saw Red apples, and so said "all apples are red", and then you saw a green apple, then you disproved the theory.
A confident gullibility is weaker than a humble ignorance because knowing the weakness in your data is your doubt and how you seek the next level of truth, but to think you're right using a subset of reality is failure.
Currently none have disproved GR but it is being constantly tested. Eventually probable a better theory of GR will arise - would you say therefore GR is wrong and not use it? GR is what is accurately being used to make your phone GPS work, but if GR was found flawed would you then throw away your GPS? No. Newton's theory of Gravity accurately calculated many things, the planets and moon motions, but there was a precession of the planet Mercury which was not explained, and GR helped form a better theory of Gravity. Even though GR shows Newton wrong, we still use Newton "classical mechanics" as its simpler and good enough away from high relativistic velocities and strong gravity. GR does not include quantum mechanics so we know GR is incomplete.
The plural of anecdotes is not evidence.