That's reasonably fair, but it's worth noting that even in these situations the true circumstance might be a little more nuanced than the idea of a "true model"

That's reasonably fair, but it's worth noting that even in these situations the true circumstance might be a little more nuanced than the idea of a "true model" suggests. - In polling, it's a bit of an ideal world idea to think that the true voting preferences of all Americans are (1) fixed, (2) consistently measurable, or (3) even relevant given a lot of people won't vote. These are all sources of unknowns and variances which make me pretty unhappy with the idea of the idea of a true model even here. - In physics there's definitely a notion of a true model taken under the assumption that one set of equations and models is "correct" (which is its own philosophical problem!) but even then experiments don't measure this true model perfectly. They're also based on correction for variance in measurement and tooling which is assumed to be eventually ignorable. In any case, this has a much more definite notion of a true model, but I still find it difficult to swallow all together.