[UnFleshedOne]

Being right for wrong reasons is still a bad thing, see the recent article about gettier cases. Eg. if you see a cardboard cutout cow in the field and think that is a cow, you are wrong even if there is an actual cow behind the cutout. This is not a mere epistemic nitpicking, it is a question of whether your process of arriving to conclusions can give you right answers in other applicable cases.

So calling out woo is worth it even when it happens to lead to conclusions you agree with for other reasons.

[noobiemcfoob]

All of science is right for the wrong reasons. Our models are wrong. Just by decreasing degrees. Science will never be "true" in the strictest sense. Looking at it otherwise is a flawed viewpoint that is perpetuating post-modernism.

[UnFleshedOne]

Sure, I didn't mean to imply one can be absolutely right. But willfully choosing more wrong model and not looking to improve it is, well, more wrong.

[noobiemcfoob]

I don't think I agree. If a model is known to be largely false but in certain situations it provides good enough results and is easy to work with, that model will continue to get used until a better one replaces it. It's the classic problem undergrads have with Physics I vs. Physics II where the second declares all of Physics I false. Really, it's that Physics II is more accurate under more conditions, but that doesn't make what's learned in Physics I useless.

[UnFleshedOne]

There is a small step from physics I to physics II, accuracy wise. There is a huge step between physics I and astrology, or basic anatomy and energy meridians. To the point of one of those method from each pair not being useful even in limited specific circumstances.

I don't disagree with your points mind you, I'm making a distinction between inaccurate methods that work in their own limited domain with limited accuracy (that is all we have, I agree) and not even wrong methods that sometimes work by accident but don't generalize even within their own stated limits.