4 ms·
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
by Mawr 2y 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 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
- QuarterReptile 2y agoThis 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.