Contingent vs Absolute Truth

+Neil deGrasse Tyson has been going around saying something that sounds smart and pro-science but is actually foolish.

If you believe in this, you can't justify Einstein going after Newton. But that's not actually how science works. Science is about discovering contingent truths, not absolute truths. You always get to have a different opinion, but you're constrained to use the opinion that has the best evidence at the time. It's that latter constraint which makes science work, not shutting down your mind and not having opinions about scientific matters that might be different than present consensus.

So why is Tyson doing this? He's got to be smart enough to know that he's taking liberties. Why not teach science as it is? I wish I knew.