> That means it is incorrect.
No, it doesn't. It is inadequate at higher energy levels. But for anything most of the world is ever likely to to, it is perfectly accurate.
> It's amazing how few scientists know the limits of science and the sheer hackery of the whole enterprise.
Hmm. So... science is "sheer hackery." But superstition... why, that's revealed Truth!
No, it is inadequate at all energy levels. It's just good enough for your cheap, first decimal point approximations. If you want to know what is really going on in the system, you'll have to think a little harder.
Now you can continue in your ignorance, getting results that are good enough, but you will (a) never know what is really going on and (b) be flummoxed when a more complicated system frustrates your model.