Dzhay posted:

I think you have a funny idea of how some of the more abstract bits of science work, I would happily class this as "progress". Old models have been shown to fail under some circumstances and new ones introduced that fail in fewer or "further out" ways. The question of whether they agree in the regimes where you would expect both to be valid is an interesting one.

This seems less a disagreement over what is true and more a disagreement over what is the most interesting thing about a text to study...

I feel my discipline (physics) is being misrepresented here. We have various ways of modelling or explaining physical phenomena, some of these work better in some places than others, but they cannot be ranked universally into "better" or "worse". I appreciate what you're getting at here, but I'm not sure it's a fundamental difference.