The context for satisfaction is different for every individual human. Some parts of the context are shared (to various degrees). These 'shared contexts' we might call rationality, or science, or society, or religion.
Another part of the problem is that satisfaction is recursive.
We may evaluate something based on:
1. Correctness
2. Completeness
3. Satisfaction
For instance, if you are only aware of Electromagnetism, then Maxwell's equations are correct, complete, and satisfying. And then some jerk discovers neutrons.
Anyway, this whole comment may fit into your first three points; or it may help someone understand a failure to communicate.
Sorry for being pedantic but I think that's what the above commentator meant.
Isn't that technically overeating though?
Anyway, while I agree on these other types of "wrong" being important, I don't know about calling 1-3. wrong, per se. Also, I'm curious what part of linguistics you consider to belong under the "vanity" label, and why it would be apt to call "pointless" facts (like the age of the Earth) wrong.
It's bizarre to even consider that investigating the age of the Earth is "pointless". Finding out the age of our planet and other celestial bodies matters a lot in astronomy! Understanding the universe is the opposite of pointless, it's fascinating.
Or did you mean something else?
Not obvious at all. According to Wikipedia it was discovered in 17th century. About only half century earlier than the discovery of bacteria.
1. Vacuous, which provide no useful insight beyond what is obviously deducible. Such as "nearsightedness is caused by the wrong shape of the eye".
2. Vanity, which provide useless elaboration of something that is very well understood in a much simpler form, with no realistic hope of any future insight. Such as most of linguistics.
3. Pointless. Explain something that is difficult to get to know, because it matters so little. While technically correct, the actual facts matter so little that they result in no realistic improvement of any kind, and no decisions are changed as the result of the new knowledge. Such as the age of Earth.
4. Theoretically wrong, those that the article is talking about. Even though theoretically wrong, the are so nearly equivalent to the actual truth, that the difference doesn't matter in practice.
5. Practically wrong. Those that "sound good" so that people stick to them, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. Such as that obesity is caused by overeating, in spite of the near universal failure in practice, in the last instance of Ozempic making people look like walking corpses, rather than anything like a healthy body. This is the kind of errors meant by those who write to people like Asimov.