the electric universe model is far better than the gravity model.

Does "the electric universe model" make more accurate and more reliable predictions about the future?

And, although the planets still go around the sun, all the reasons why are different, making all the assumptions they teach you today worthless.

Are the predictions functionally identical?

The animistic model of the universe is far better than the materialist model
at describing... everything.

Does "the animistic model" make more accurate and more reliable predictions about the future?

And thus, it complete obsoletes so much scientific dogma.

I'm pretty certain the "scientific dogma" still has demonstrable efficacy (even if you believe it is technically incorrect).

Further, thinking that there is a real world out there makes you assume certain things, like what i see is what you see.

While I agree with you that Qualitatively, what you see doesn't necessarily mean the same to you as what I see means to me, there are still REAL-TRUE-FACTS that are a function of our shared definition of what it means to be human.

When we discard that piece, we have to take into account many other aspects, like the people's feelings about such.

I'm not sure we agree on what the scope of "science" actually is.

As for instance, these people who found cold-fusion found something.
But then, MIT came out and said it was all bogus.
Thus, the people all believed that it didn't exist.
And now it doesn't.

Well there is still an unexplained excess of heat.