drafting "Useful Approximation": gravity analogy

It's a clichéd example
(http://unremediatedgender.space/2017/Dec/interlude-xi/), but it makes
the point.

(And if I can write a paragraph in twenty minutes, then maybe I can
write all the things I still have left to say this year, twenty
minutes at a time.)

diff --git a/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md b/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
index 519f366..f783106 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
+++ b/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
@@ -8,12 +8,7 @@ A lot of people tend to balk when first hearing about the [two-type taxonomy of
 
 In some ways, it's a fair complaint! Psychology is _complicated_; every human is their own unique snowflake. But it would be impossible to navigate the world using the "every human is their own unique _maximum-entropy_ snowflake" theory. In order to [compress our observations](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mB95aqTSJLNR9YyjH/message-length) of the world we see, we end up distilling our observations into categories, clusters, diagnoses, taxons: no one matches any particular clinical-profile stereotype _exactly_, but [the world makes more sense when you have language for theoretical abstractions](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ontology-of-psychiatric-conditions) like ["comas"](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/11/does-the-glasgow-coma-scale-exist-do-comas/) or "depression" or "bipolar disorder"—or "autogynephilia".
 
-Concepts and theories are good to the extent that they can "pay for" their complexity by making more accurate predictions.
-
-
-
-
-
+Concepts and theories are good to the extent that they can "pay for" their complexity by making more accurate predictions. How much complexity is worth how much accuracy? Arguably, it depends! General relativity has superceded Newtonian classical mechanics as the ultimate theory of how gravity works, but if you're not dealing with velocities approaching the speed of light, Newton still makes _very good_ predictions: it's pretty reasonable to still talk about Newtonian gravitation being true if it makes the math easier on you, and the more complicated math doesn't give appreciably different answers to the problems you're interested in. Moreover, if relativity hasn't been invented yet, it makes sense to stick with Newtonian gravity as the _best_ theory you have _so far_, even if there are a few anomalies [like the precession of Mercury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury) that it struggles to explain.
 
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_graph
@@ -22,11 +17,6 @@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_graph
 
 Let me explain. 
 
-
-
-
-
-
 [the taxonomy can emerge as a shorthand for a complicated causal graph]
 
 [What are the reasons transitioning could possibly make sense to someone?—]