It sounds very much as if the professor has summoned up a straw man in order to lay claim to a more enlightened approach. In reality, no physicist I know imagines that we're anywhere close to knowing everything - let's recall that we have no idea about dark matter, dark energy, or whether gravity is quantized or not. And these are merely the most obvious points. Physicists aren't making iron-clad laws; they are trying to understand reality in all its perplexing complexity. The plethora of theoretical approaches (string theory, the holographic principle, etc.) are all examples of how unconstrained many physicists are. Most importantly of all, our current imperfect and incomplete models have done a superb job of describing and explaining a wide range of empirical phenomenon - which hardly indicates a failure of physics.

In short, it's easy to write a book attacking something that doesn't exist (the supposed inflexibility and narrowness of modern physics), but it's probably much more useful to become acquainted with actual modern physics first because it's neither inflexible nor narrow.