this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
1704 points (98.2% liked)

People Twitter

5189 readers
1916 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There are also plenty of things in science that are taught that are technically incorrect, but give you a working model that you can build on later. The atomic model being a rather typical example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh. Yeah. That's a good point. When I taught a dead language, I would tell my students that all grammars lie to you, but some of the lies are useful.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The Wittgensteinian Ladder. The pedagogical expedient misinformation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

That's fair: abstraction. The technical wrongness of "orbiting electrons" as in the whichever-model serves a purpose: the truth is hairy, and more importantly not practically relevant if you're calculating sliding boxes around planes and that sort of thing.

On the other hand, "10% of the brain" and similar nuggets of common "wisdom" are just flat-out wrong, often stupidly so. There's very little use in that.