It isn't really a fallacy, just pedantic. We can't really assert a philosophical concept of 'truth' in physics, because there is always uncertainty. By extension, any statement that 'this is how the world is working' has a good chance of being wrong in theory and practice.
For example, as I know we have random variables in the current models of quantum physics. Based on our historic experience with the universe, they may yet prove not to actually be random. Until quantum physics, random variables were always a theoretical construct to fill in gaps in our knowledge - eg, "experimental error" was expected to be limits in our ability to measure rather than something fundamental.
Classical physics is really handy, but it doesn't accurately model how the world works in a can-I-simulate-reality-according-to-our-best-knowledge sense. That falsifies the theory.
Nope. The randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be erased with more detailed knowledge-- ascribing any number of "hidden" properties to particles to explain their quantum behavior produces mathematical inconsistencies. See:
Actually technically Bells Theorem says you can’t have hidden variables if you want to retain _locality_. If you allow nonlocality Bells Theorem still allows hidden variables.
It's not "just pedantic" or related to uncertainty.
Classical electrodynamics or classical mechanics did not switch from true to false, they turned into good effective theories. Just like quantum field theory is already considered to be effective theory without any known theory that is more complete.
When the limitations of the quantum field theory theory are known and it works within those limits, the theory is not falsified with new discoveries outside those limits.
For example, as I know we have random variables in the current models of quantum physics. Based on our historic experience with the universe, they may yet prove not to actually be random. Until quantum physics, random variables were always a theoretical construct to fill in gaps in our knowledge - eg, "experimental error" was expected to be limits in our ability to measure rather than something fundamental.
Classical physics is really handy, but it doesn't accurately model how the world works in a can-I-simulate-reality-according-to-our-best-knowledge sense. That falsifies the theory.