You talk about a growth in the knowledge which consequentially results in better models than what the past and history offered but I feel your statement is heavily rigged with the illusion that the present is ever enduring. Putting this in practical example; Sometime in the past, tools available were the best of their time and a similar statement as such would have held ground denouncing the flaws of much earlier tools and lack in knowledge. Now in the present we exist in those much glorified tools of past are being faulted and the holes in its knowledge have been filled but in the future(near or far) these same tools we glorify would be shamed as archaic, hugely flawed and a new chasm we currently do not see would be found out.
Doesn’t this at the end of day back his call that past models are unreliable as its integrity only goes as far as the time it exists in?
Intellectual Humility seems to put these in consideration
