It can't be offensive. I might have been unclear but we actively use one of them. The other is a French stabbing sword-bayonet unsuited for cutting.
>But let's not forget it's a story. I'm sure some people are better or worse at butchering sheep, but a genericism does not add anything.
I don't know where you're seeing a genericism because it's rather precise: you feel, as in tactile feeling, where there is a gap and you cut. I understand what you mean though by "not true but useful" and the practice of a "folk taxonomy" of sorts to create a new class called "useful but not true" to avoid polluting your "true" branch.
I remember I had detected a pattern that helped me in high school chemistry where I made up a rule based on the Carbon count. It held perfectly for the low carbon count stuff we were studying at the time but I knew it couldn't be generalized. I guess the scope of something, folk taxonomy, mnemonic devices, etc. are also examples of "useful but not true".
I love the story. There is much to learn; to me, it's about understanding where rather than how much.
But let's not forget it's a story. I'm sure some people are better or worse at butchering sheep, but a genericism does not add anything.
It's like if I say, "when you feel resistance, relax then work through it". It's meaningless. Not un-useful, not un-true, but definitely not "true" by the high standards of repeatable objective science.
"Not true but useful" is a phrase I frequently tell myself to improve my life without losing understanding of the spectrum of "true", and where I draw my line.