Not sure about the ‘colour’ of your post 
but since you like philosophy, the following will probably give you my answer to the pill query:
“… In fact, many of the best theories are self destructive, by provoking fresh inquiry and leading to new facts which they cannot explain. The only useless theories are those that cannot be tested and can explain everything” (A.V. Hill, 1965, 362–3).
“The greatest single achievement of science in this most scientifically productive of centuries is the discovery that we are profoundly ignorant. … I wish there were some formal courses in medical school on medical ignorance; textbooks as well, although they would have to be very heavy volumes. We have a long way to go.” (Dr Lewis Thomas, 1985, 10).
“In his influential text, Viennese philosopher Sir Karl Popper (1969) explains the pivotal importance of research that aims to disprove the currently considered ‘truth’. He begins by posing the fundamental question: What identifies empirical science and therefore distinguishes it from pseudoscience? He concludes that: A statement (a theory, a conjecture) has the status of belonging to the empirical sciences if, and only if, it is falsifiable. According to this criterion, a statement or theory is falsifiable, that is, able to be refuted, if and only if there exists at least one potential falsifier – at least one basic statement that conflicts with it logically. He continues that the falsifier does not itself have to be known to be true, only that it logically refutes the conjecture.”
“Thinking people tend to develop some framework into which they try to fit whatever new idea they may come across; as a rule, they even translate any new idea which they meet into a language appropriate to their own framework. One of the most characteristic tasks of philosophy is to attack, if necessary, the framework itself.” (Popper, 1988, 17).
“The theory always came first, put forward from the desire to have an elegant and consistent mathematical model. The theory then makes predictions, which can be tested by observation. If the observations agree with the predictions, that doesn’t prove the theory; but the theory survives to make further predictions, which again are tested against observation. If the observations don’t agree with the predictions, one abandons the theory. Or rather, that is what is supposed to happen. In practice, people are very reluctant to give up a theory in which they have invested a lot of time and effort. They usually start by questioning the accuracy of the observations. If that fails, they try to modify the theory in an ad hoc manner. Eventually the theory becomes a creaking and ugly edifice. Then someone suggests a new theory in which all the awkward observations are explained in an elegant and natural manner” (Hawking, 1993: 36).
To avoid being misunderstood (again?), as far as I am concerned, the pill is red!