I think “misconception” is a bad term to use to mean something that is capable of further progress/improvement. I think that’s related to what you were talking about earlier re inoptimal (not perfect, open to more progress).
There are also things where people should have known better, or are doing something wrong with their methods, so that terms like “mistake” or “misconception” are more appropriate. I also have no issue with calling tons of stuff a “mistake” or “misconception” in retrospect when we actually know better (while sometimes granting that it was reasonable to believe at the time if anyone asks but usually not preemptively stating that). But the proposal to call things misconceptions immediately when we come up with them is not speaking about them in retrospect; it’s calling stuff errors before we know of any error just on the basis that we expect to later discover something we could call an error.
Also if people don’t know what a “theory” or “idea” or “hypothesis” or whatever is (e.g. they don’t know it’s fallible), I don’t think switching the terminology is the right way to fix that. Changing the official terminology to try to get people to think differently sounds like something in the ballpark of propaganda to me. If you think a bunch of people are wrong, you need to remember your fallibility and respect their opinions as real opinions, not try to make them change without being persuaded. If you think they’re wrong, what you should want is debate, critical discussion, education, etc., not a different way of speaking (which isn’t going to substantively explain anything new to them).
And it’s important to have terminology to let us differentiate between an idea you think is wrong now, according to current knowledge (“mistake”, “misconception”, etc.) and an idea you agree with but expect to be improved in the future. Calling both things “misconceptions” would be really problematic. (We sometimes run into a similar problem when speaking about the past because we usually differentiate less regarding the past than the present, and e.g. the term “misconception”, referring to the past, could mean either something that was a misconception in its original context or a misconception in today’s new context.)
There’s also a difference between things that are the best current knowledge but turn out to be wrong in some kind of fundamental way vs. things that simply get more optimized later, with some details being wrong/inoptimal and changed. Some ideas fit well into later knowledge as a part of greater whole, while some don’t (and we don’t know very accurately in advance which will be which).
I think for some of my examples, you mistook them as being the best available knowledge which I just expect to be improved on in the future. But I didn’t mean them that way. Like with Western farming practices: there is a claim that the native Americans had a better way of farming (food forests), and the Europeans came here and were too dumb/stubborn/condescending/whatever to notice, so then they destroyed the farms and the culture and most of the people without even understanding what it was. Like the farms didn’t look like Europeans farms, so the Europeans thought the natives were too stupid to farm effectively and were just lucky to live in a land of natural abundance, but actually it wasn’t natural abundance or luck, it was a different farming method which created that “natural” abundance. But this idea isn’t totally lost; it’s available today to anyone who cares to research it (I have not researched it). There are other issues, involving ideas that exist today, like that maybe tilling is mostly bad. And that a lot of farming wouldn’t be profitable without government subsidies. And that maybe regenerative agriculture is good, maybe we should monocrop way less, maybe our selective breeding and GMO efforts have done major harm, and maybe our pesticides are causing a lot of harm like cancer. So I think it’s plausible that Western farming practices are wrong, in a bunch of different important ways, based on currently existing knowledge and that lots of farmers (and politicians) should make significant changes now. The example wasn’t intended as just a speculation that we’ll have better methods in the future.
(I do not consider it plausible that the native American farming method was strictly better. I think that, plausibly, it had major advantages and it (and variants on it) should be in widespread use along with some European-style or mixed farming too.)