Paul, this is literally semantics. If you accept the definition of “false” as commonly used in philosophy of science then my statement stands. If you don’t, it doesn’t. But I don’t see what of substance depends on this disagreement. Even if you don’t want to use the word “false,” you still admit that all maps produced so far are not a perfect rendition of the territory.

And I disagree that that’s not the expectation. If it weren't, why keep producing new and better maps?