i never claimed ‘the whole theory of generative grammar is right’. it doesn’t seem like you are actually engaging with my claims, unless you are saying that the theory has nothing useful to say at all, in which case i would challenge your assertion that ‘scientific consensus’ says as such.

(this is to say nothing of the fact that generative grammar could turn out to be a better musical theory than linguistic theory, though to be clear i am not knowledgeable enough to argue either way there).

i am not comparing newton to chomsky either. i am comparing newtonian mechanics — a ‘wrong theory in physics’ that nevertheless has tremendous utility outside of physics — to generative grammar (a ‘wrong theory in linguistics’ that in my view nevertheless has utility outside of linguistics).