You’re confusing “understand” and “accept as useful or true”.
Alicorn’s post was good summary of deontology. I understand it, I just don’t agree with it. Richard Garfinkle’s SF novel Celestial Matters in addition to being a great read, also elucidates some consequences of Aristotelian physics, increasing the intuition of the reader. I certainly think that Garfinkle understands Aristotelian physics, and just as assuredly is unwilling to use it for orbital calculations in practice (though quite capable of doing the same for fiction purposes).
EDIT: reading further in the comments, I do indeed see plenty of people who don’t understand deontic ethics. But just your comment about “not being able to swap in or out” does not at all demonstrate lack of understanding.
EDIT: I’d also appreciate a comment by the person who downvoted me about their reasoning (or anyone else who disagrees with the substance). I obviously think this is fairly straight-forward point—understanding and accepting are two different things. Wanting to swap a framework in or out of our web of belief is not purely about understanding it, but about accepting it. Related, certainly (it really helps to understand something in order to accept it), but not the same.
You’re confusing “understand” and “accept as useful or true”.
Alicorn’s post was good summary of deontology. I understand it, I just don’t agree with it. Richard Garfinkle’s SF novel Celestial Matters in addition to being a great read, also elucidates some consequences of Aristotelian physics, increasing the intuition of the reader. I certainly think that Garfinkle understands Aristotelian physics, and just as assuredly is unwilling to use it for orbital calculations in practice (though quite capable of doing the same for fiction purposes).
EDIT: reading further in the comments, I do indeed see plenty of people who don’t understand deontic ethics. But just your comment about “not being able to swap in or out” does not at all demonstrate lack of understanding.
EDIT: I’d also appreciate a comment by the person who downvoted me about their reasoning (or anyone else who disagrees with the substance). I obviously think this is fairly straight-forward point—understanding and accepting are two different things. Wanting to swap a framework in or out of our web of belief is not purely about understanding it, but about accepting it. Related, certainly (it really helps to understand something in order to accept it), but not the same.