[shwouchk]

it’s a necessarily a logical implication that this theory would be a good approximation at certain scales just by the sheer fact that it used to be a theory that fit observations at some point. That is also true of “completely incorrect” theories like heliocentricity.

In the case of NM we happened to have something that is often also computationally simple and efficient so we keep using it, but it is by no means a “correct theory”. just a useful model that is still useful.

i daresay it will continue to be useful for some things even if we eg discover that we are living in a simulation and manage to escape! As long as some part of us will continue to experience this reality it will be useful - the math is simple and gives good approximations in many cases.

[shwouchk]

maybe a clearer case - the “planetary” model of electrons floating around the nucleus is useful in chemistry and is still taught in grade school, but i would definitely call it “discarded” in that no one doing research in the field would use that - it’s just a useful model for “engineering” practitioners

[XorNot]

I wouldn't say it's useful in chemistry. Chemistry at any basic level is deeply concerned with the shape of the probability fields of electrons around a nucleus since it's the dominant contribute to the shape of molecules and strength of bonding.

EDIT: Like ironically I would say the planetary model has 1 unique utility, which is that for hydrogen-NMR it's useful to just assume that 1 electron is producing a little magnetic field like a Bohr model atom.

[shwouchk]

im less interested in having a pedantic argument online regarding exact meaning of useful and exactly for what. the bottom line with this example is that its a useful model for some things and therefore still is taught in science classes today as a “correct” description just like NM, both of which which are not, fundamentally.

Take it or leave it :-)