On: Lie-to-children

[leetrout]

> the authors acknowledge that some people might dispute the applicability of the term lie, while defending it on the grounds that "it is for the best possible reasons, but it is still a lie".

[badcppdev → leetrout]

I sense a paradox there. They are insisting on calling it a lie but really it isn't

[rvnx → badcppdev]

The models that they call "lie" are, in fact, mostly correct, they are good approximations, with limited scope, and sometimes don't handle edge cases, the same with Newton's gravity and many topics.

The same way that Pi is not 3.14159, nor it is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286, and it's not a lie, just an approximation.

The reality is that we don't know the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Even general relativity is a lie if you want to go that route.

This Wikipedia article is just scientific trolling promoted by satiric authors like Pratchett, that some people here are taking too seriously.

[genman → rvnx]

And these authors are hurting science because they equate actual lies like made up stories created to deceive masses with scientific simplifications.