This is a linkpost for http://ferocioustruth.com/2017/responses-to-folk-ontologies/
In addition to the first two responses elucidated by Simon, there is a third available response to incorrect folk ontologies. This is to restrict the use of the idea to the circumstances or ways in which it can be reasonably applied while recognizing that it is fundamentally unreal.
In my opinion, the idea that some things are "fundamentally real", while others are "fundamentally unreal," is itself a folk ontology which should be rejected.
The article was rather optimistic about our ability to establish correspondence, rather than just attain stuff that works.