Not exactly. Whatever definition you present for the word paradox is potentially true. If your definition is so vague it can't be tested, it is a very poor definition. If your definition is proved false it is no longer potentially true. Nothing can be better than potentially true. There is always pending a new interpretation of data, new data, or some better understanding offing to better define paradox.

For centuries Newton's explanation of orbital mechanics based on his formulae were accepted as true. Only very minor differences between what his calculations predicted and what actually occurred were observed. However, Einstein's relativity explained these differences, and completely upended physics. Einsteinian cosmology is radically different from Newton's, and the mathematics are also (much more difficult), while the solutions in orbital mechanics are so close that rocket scientists today still use Newtonian maths because they're much easier, and close enough for rocket science.

This is what I mean when I say proof does not exist.

I am confident that Einstein will be proved wrong, sooner or later, in the same way that Newton was. Perhaps only in a very minor way, perhaps in hugely substantial ways, but his formulae and cosmology will be amended when some part or aspect of it is falsified and a better explanation put forward.

This doesn't only apply to esoteric physics and math. We find, when we look, examples in every field of inquiry where accepted truths were proved false, and amended to make them more right, or they were altogether replaced. When we discuss something as incapable of falsification as theories of consciousness or spirituality, all manner of explanations and interpretations are claimed to be true by believers, but none of them can be tested and therefore amount to mere speculation or hypothesis, no more provable than the ravings of the mad.