I was going to reply with, "Yes, but the distinction in this case is that at least this presented color model is roughly correct, in that it is part of a chain of successively more correct models, that has significant overlap with what's real."

But then I pressed myself for -- what exactly is that overlap? I mean, creationism...flat earth theory, have some overlap with the evidence. They are models. People criticise them because they don't overlap as much with the evidence as other models.

In this case, I realized I didn't know enough about the topic to know how much the presented model ( about color theory...which I like and find comprehensible ) overlaps with the "reality" or "the rest of the evidence" about it.

So my objection to comparing this color theory I like to other models that have been widely invalidated...is simply personal. I don't know enough about the data about color to make any substantive argument about why it's different. I feel it must overlap more with the "reality" of color than the other models. Because it makes sense to me, I can see the logic and it matched my impressions about color and was useful to me. And I trust my instincts. ( There is something more in that I'll come to in a minute )

It's sort of uncomfortable to realize I don't know enough about it to refute objections to my fav new theory with anything more than "But I really like it and I can see the truth to it." But at the same time, I'm okay with that. I'm not going to learn more about the data to be able to offer these objections. I think mainly because...this theory is useful enough to me. It works for what I need right now. And matches the pace I want to learn things about this at.

From an economic argument -- this model has utility to me, so I selected it, as opposed to alternatives.

I really appreciated your link to Grassmann. I was super happy that my instincts overlapped with the guy that invented linear algebra.

Which brings me to another point. Science is sometimes uncomfortable because you realize that what is accepted my a lot of people, goes against your instinct, or your direct experience.

I think there's something really important in this. And I don't think it's so simple as "well that means you're wrong" -- I think it's the case that the following are true:

When your instincts are against the majority opinion. Either: 1) they're onto a more valid model than you, more likely, or 2) you're onto a more valid model than them and they've missed something, less likely, and yet that's the history of science ( and startups! ), or 3) the relative levels of validity do not matter to you because it has more personal utility for you, at that point in your life, to believe the model you like than something else.

I like the third point -- because in there is room for tolerance of diversity based on the idea of personal utility. As long as the utility doesn't cause significant cost to anyone else, then trusting your instincts in the face of evidence, even if you're wrong, can still be the choice that maximizes personal utility for you at that point.

Again, this comment might be too long...but I thought it useful to explore my vulnerability to realizing I didn't know enough, but I liked it anyway -- in this forum, so other people could see that maybe when you get to that point, it doesn't always have to result in fighting...but there can be something to learn from it. I think people here will appreciate that--but if not, I guess this type of comment is better as a blog post or personal note.

Personal utility functions over lifepaths -- it's a complex landscape out there!