Is there such a thing as settled science?  It depends on how you view science and its findings.  I was arguing viewpoints with a visiting health physicist, whose name, I forget, at a lab that I worked at for a short time.

The visiting health physicist introduced me to a quote from a textbook Introduction to Health Physics by Herman Cember and Thomas E. Johnson.

Models or theories are useful insofar as they describe observed phenomena
and permit prediction of the consequences of certain actions. Philosophically, most
scientists subscribe to the school of thought known as “logical positivism.” According
to this philosophy, there is no way to discover or to verify an absolute truth. Science is not concerned with absolute truth or reality—it is concerned with giving the simplest possible unified description of as many experimental findings as possible. It follows, therefore, that several different theories on the nature of electromagnetic radiation (or for the nature of matter, energy, electricity, etc.) are perfectly acceptable provided that each theory is capable of explaining experimentally observed facts that the others cannot explain.

Richard Feynman spoke in a similar vein, I grabbed the following quotes from  Today in Science History Site: Quotes from Richard Feynman.

Here he was answers a question about whether there were ultimate laws of physics.

People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?”  No, I’m not; I’m just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it;  that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers,  and we’re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that’s the way it is …

Here he talks about nature telling us what is and isn’t.

Philosophers have said that if the same circumstances don’t always produce the same results, predictions are impossible and science will collapse. Here is a circumstance—identical photons are always coming down in the same direction to the piece of glass—that produces different results. We cannot predict whether a given photon will arrive at A or B. All we can predict is that out of 100 photons that come down, an average of 4 will be reflected by the front surface. Does this mean that physics, a science of great exactitude, has been reduced to calculating only the probability of an event, and not predicting exactly what will happen? Yes. That’s a retreat, but that’s the way it is:
Nature permits us to calculate only probabilities. Yet science has not collapsed

Here he talks about the need for many bags of theories and models.

A good theoretical physicist today might find it useful to have a wide range of physical viewpoints and mathematical expressions of the same theory (for example, of quantum electrodynamics) available to him. This may be asking too much of one man. Then new students should as a class have this. If every individual student follows the same current fashion in expressing and thinking about electrodynamics or field theory, then the variety of hypotheses being generated to understand strong interactions, say, is limited. Perhaps rightly so, for possibly the chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off-chance that it is in another direction—a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory—who will find it? A good theoretical physicist today might find it useful to have a wide range of physical viewpoints and mathematical expressions of the same theory (for example, of quantum electrodynamics) available to him. This may be asking too much of one man. Then new students should as a class have this. If every individual student follows the same current fashion in expressing and thinking about electrodynamics or field theory, then the variety of hypotheses being generated to understand strong interactions, say, is limited. Perhaps rightly so, for possibly the chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off-chance that it is in another direction—a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory—who will find it?

If the notion of settled science is the set of models and theories that more accurately describe the observed reality, maybe so.