Possibly, but it's a fact that (a) in dim light the eye sees "monochrome" rather than in colour, (b) the eye reacts far faster to shape changes irrespective of colour than it does to changes of colour, which indicates that the way the eye is seeing is sort of LRGB with the luminosity signal being the most important. The sensitivity of the rods used in low light is in the blue-green region which is probably why monochrome images taken with an orange or red filter can look unnatural.

I suppose it does depend a lot on whether you look at photography from the artistic point of view or taking the scientific image sensor approach. Sometimes deliberately exaggerated or even completely false colouring can show details in the image which are not apparent to the eye; so can image processing techniques like edge detection; this can be useful for scientific recording work, and the results can be beautiful even if totally unrealistic. So what I'm saying is that sometimes literal falsehood can expose the hidden truth. However, IMO, that's not what traditional pictorial photography is about.