No, even in science he's right. You can have a model that is fundamentally correct, but useless in working out the particulars of a situation. There's a Feynm

No, even in science he's right. You can have a model that is fundamentally correct, but useless in working out the particulars of a situation. There's a Feynman quote that "every theoretical physicist who is any good knows six or seven different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics." Often you find an idea that seems more fundamental than what you had before. General relativity supersedes Newton's model of gravity. But if you want to calculate ballistic motion across the surface of the earth, you're not going to reach for general relativity -- Newton's is the more useful model there.