For example, frequently people say scientists could be wrong about, say, evolution because the greatest minds used to think that the Sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. They're not, however, comparable. The geocentric model proposed by the Greeks was just that, a model. To make sense of their observations they had planets going around in a circle while also revolving around the Earth. People accepted it for hundreds of years based on limited observations (and also because thinkers in the Middle Ages were big on arguments from authority), but it never reached the level of a scientific theory (which didn't exist as a concept until recently).
Evolution, on the other hand, is very much a scientific theory, which means we have a body of facts that have stood up under intense scrutiny. It's a theory because there's room for refinement and there's a lot still left to learn, but many of the core concepts have been verified through repeated tests and will not ever be debunked. Organisms do evolve and environmental pressures do influence evolution, but we're for sure going to find that we've misidentified extinct species as belonging to one family or another. That sort of thing.
In the case of the sound barrier, scientists didn't think it was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound. Bullets had been breaking the sound barrier for hundreds of years prior to Yeager's flight. Rockets also existed that could break the sound barrier. What was in dispute was whether a human could withstand the pressures of traveling at the speed of sound and, if so, whether they could maintain control of their craft. Even that was never a scientific dispute. Pilots were skeptical because they had difficulty when approaching the speed of sound in the aircraft that existed at the time (they described it as feeling like hitting a brick wall, hence the barrier motif).
Scientists working in the field of aerodynamics, though, widely believed it to be possible with a properly engineered craft. The "sound barrier" is a misnomer that leads some to believe scientists used to literally claim nothing could go faster than sound much like scientists dispute that anything can go faster than light today. That is not the case, so when scientists today say that traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible and list well thought out scientific reasons, it's not the same as the sound barrier, which was not based on science or a solid understanding of aerodynamics whatsoever.
If you've read up on exactly why science says it's impossible to go faster than light and you'd like to try to pick apart specific scientific claims, great, I'm happy to do that with you. If, however, you just want to take a body of information that you're not familiar with and dismiss it because you think it compares to something else that you're also not familiar with, that's not workable. In that case, we're not having a scientific conversation. Rather we're having a conversation about what you consider "common sense" logic. It's like trying to explain to your (hypothetical) grandmother that getting cold does not cause you to catch a cold. We can understand why that makes sense to her based on her observations, but in continuing to push that myth she's demonstrating a lack of interest in learning what the actual science says about the matter.