That's what philosophers and scientists engage in continually. Until they come up with something that explains or solves the equation. And they duel with equations, looking for errors in others and their own, leading to new out-of-balance or unexplained observations, and the process continues. It's how the fields of inquiry work, a major part of the process. Einstein's cosmological constant is an unusually interesting case study in this.
Guess what? maybe the equation is flawed!
And maybe the flaw is that it is flawed.
Either way, we have do more than assert there is an error in an explanation or argument, else we're just nay-saying, rather than engaging in discussion and rational argument.
I am reminded that thanks to the Hubbell, astronomers now have a lot more on their plate, and that the universe that Einstein knew as a young man, is not what they see now. Let us say he was Galileo and Newton was yet to come. The more they look, the more it seems as though the universe of 1900 was as a mole hill to a mountain range. The new Newton is yet to come.
Sure, I agree. However scientists don;t know what's ahead, so they keep searching. The people of faith have the answers supposedly revealed to them. They "know" God, they have the "mind of Chest". They are lead by the Holy Spirit; they know they are "saved" and destined to heaven. What further purpose could be behind their inquiry?