• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah, Newtonian gravity is 99% correct. It’s extremely useful most of the time, but it’s wrong. Forgetting that fact is a slippery slope to more damaging assumptions.

    • 20hzservers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Bro, theories are rarely proven “wrong” it’s more that they are built upon when studies come along that shed more light on a specific phenomenon. It’s better to say that science tries to become more correct than to say it is proven wrong. I’m open to new empirical evidence changing my view but you only have your annecdotal story to back up your claims. I’m not forgetting that fact you are.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s better to say that science tries to become more correct than to say it is proven wrong.

        Exactly, or proven right. Science is the process of developing models which more closely approximate the world we see. It’s a fantastic tool for doing that, and the best tool we have for improving knowledge overall. But it cannot support absolute declarations. There is always the possibility that a future theory shows inadequacies in the present one.

        People like you seem to think that our present theories are fundamentally special, that we’ve reached the pinnacle of knowledge. What’s the difference between you, and the highly educated scientists over the centuries who laughed at far-fetched theories that we use today?

        Do I think astrology is a particularly useful or accurate model? No, not really. But once you start down the path of absolutism it slithers bit by bit into more and more uncertain topics. It’s a troubling trend that turns otherwise intelligent people into fundamentalists.

        Acknowledging the potential of a theory I don’t personally believe is a small price to pay for mental hygiene.

            • 20hzservers@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              You’re way too worked up over this topic. Name calling that other guy and “I’ve done way more math than you.”… Bro you need to get off the uppers. Look in a mirror.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Homie, I was civil up to the moment he started acting like an ass, far past that. I didn’t call anyone anything until he did. Dude needs to reexamine himself, you can join him.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Yes, because he resolutely claimed absolute certainty, making sweeping, unsubstantiated statements that were just demonstrably false. That’s just fundamentally unscientific. My comment was more of a rhetoric device than name-calling.

                    I don’t give half a shit about astrology, what I am passionate about is flippant, unsubstantiated certainty pretending to be scientific thought. It’s, as I’ve said, a brain rot that undercuts the very principles of science. It makes people arrogant, needlessly shuts down thought, and just generally makes a farce of the scientific method. It’s not science, it’s science fundamentalism, science apologism. It’s a poison worth fighting.