I am afraid you are simplifying the scientific progress quite a bit with "we have a model, then we look for empiric data and if there is conclusive evidence we

I am afraid you are simplifying the scientific progress quite a bit with "we have a model, then we look for empiric data and if there is conclusive evidence we can conclude that the model matches reality". It has been shown by many historians (e.g. Thomas Kuhn) that in reality scientists do not just follow these guidelines and in many cases scientific models use assumptions that cannot be verified or falsified, nor would it make sense to adhere to such strict rules. If you are interested in this topic I also recommend the discussion of Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend, which has been a very important contribution to how we now think about scientific progress. Hence I tend to disagree with you and in fact you could probably say that many of the theoretical discussions you find in Physics (such as Quantum Mechanics) can be seen as being actually closer to Philosophical debate.