undefined | Better HN

0 pointstbihl11mo ago0 comments

>It can't make more sense to believe in one entirely made up thing vs another since they're both made up.

It makes sense to believe in Newton's laws, which he made up, even though we know the study of kinematics flowing from them is wrong. We have observed them being wrong. Someone else made up a complicated explanation of why and when Newton's laws are wrong. That guy's theories formed the basis for some incredible stuff that works really well, and he's probably wrong too... but I'll believe them both.

0 comments

Mawr11mo ago

Yeah, sure, Newton "made up" the laws. Good one.

For anyone curious, this is an example of the Continuum Fallacy [1]. Interestingly, that wiki page happens to use Newton's laws as an example:

"For example, Newton's gravitational theories are "wrong" (they're a rough approximation) and Einstein's gravitation is almost certainly "wrong" too (it doesn't easily blend with quantum mechanics), but it would be a spectacular fallacy to suggest that they are equally wrong because there is such a continuous shading between "makes rough predictions" and "makes more accurate predictions" when it comes to scientific theories. Saying that the Earth is flat is wrong, and saying that it's spherical is also wrong — it's an oblate spheroid, roughly — but both statements do not have the same degree of "wrongness" on a continuum."

[1]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

tbihlOP11mo ago

This is not an example of the 'Continuum fallacy', but you believe it so because you are thoroughly convinced that religious thinking is vacuous.

Unless you are denying Newton's agency or participation, he made those laws up. That's how articulation of reality works.

When you make a strong binary conjecture, you invite counterproof. You object to the wording because you find it beneath the dignity of those laws to label it so; on that point, we agree.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse