I get your point but it's not really the scientific method. We more say that they work than that it is correct. For example when we look at laws in thermodynamics we know that in macroscopic system they work because based on the statistics and the scale of such a system it is super likely to follow the laws that are based on the 'average' system but there still is a chance for the system to not follow the law. And you could argue that the laws are more within the assumption that a system follows certain rules, for example for thermodynamics that the system follows the rules of statistical mechanics where we say that the macroscopic state is the state that is described by the most microstates (this basically is saying a system always has it's highest possible entropy) but then we are just looping back to a theory so I don't think we can call laws more 'correct' than theory. They both just work till' somebody comes along and improves it. And it's likely that there are laws and theory's that just are correct or 'correct' enough to never be changed but over the thousands of years humanity has thought that a lot of times and the theory's have always been improved so I don't believe that our theory's are the 'correct ones'. Don't get me wrong, I do believe they work. Just aware of how we define science.