What is a proof?

[Angrboda]

Newton's laws are not wrong, merely incomplete and also inaccurate when dealing with situations involving extremes of gravity and speeds close to that of light.

I respectfully disagree and suggest that in an important sense, Newton's laws are wrong. Ignoring for the moment that Newtonian and relativistic gravity are not the same beast, there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. It's commonly maintained that if you restrict yourself to non-relativistic speeds, then Newton's laws provide a reasonably accurate approximation of the relativistic calculations. This ignores the elephant in the room, gravity herself, which travels at relativistic speeds (thus the phenomena of gravitational waves).

As to epistemology, the problem is less that different belief communities have differing epistemologies as it is that certain belief communities want to use some core of epistemological assumptions inconsistently depending on whether the subject of concern is their beliefs, other people's beliefs, and non-belief matters. For example, if I were to say that I experience the existence of my god directly, but that god is not the Christian god, or related in any way to Yahweh, I predict that you, jstrodel, would discount that as evidence for the existence of my god (call this god Brahma). Yet, in the same breath, you see nothing wrong with claiming this is sufficient evidence of the existence of your god. You have a double standard, and engage in special pleading, though you wouldn't argue that such special pleading is valid in other contexts. It isn't the epistemological differences which are the problem; it's inconsistent application of the shared core.

(And now I'm going to duck before the shit starts to fly.)