Scientists on the other hand are not held accountible, yet such scientists will claim that their rules have universal validity, no disclaimers added. Ironically, one scientist can totally contradict another scientist. From a philosophical perspective, Einstein's relativity theory is widely accepted to be superior to Newtons rules, because it can be applied to situations where Newton's rules run into problems. Philosophically, the question is whether one model approximates natural phenomena better than another. Chaos theory is not merely used to avoid having to produce billions of billions of calculations and accumulating computer round-off errors, or because of data insufficiencies.
Chaos theory comprises much more, it is a fundamentally different approach.
Scientists want to see a joint body of work called Science, ignoring that, even among scientists, there are different views, even irreconcilable differences. In an effort to lump all such views together, scientists argue that, say, Newton's laws belong to a specific reference frame. And of course, scientists insist on defining the borders of that framework themselves, changing the goalposts when it suits them. Poets use techniques such as tautologies. But poets will admit that these are rhetorical techniques.