Ok look, normally I don’t engage with this kind of thing because it isn’t relevant to what I’m writing - but in this case you seem genuinely bothered so I’ll pause for a moment.
Firstly, no, I’m not a scientist of the stem variety nor would I ever want to be, ha! Did I take classes? Sure. So don’t be rude, please.
Second, let me amuse you with the whole factual opposites vs perceptions deep dive, here. For two things to truly be opposite to one another they must, as the root indicates, be in opposition. Vernacular use of the word does not always account for this but you are asking me to strictly relate to the physical, tangible meaning of the term. Night and day do not oppose one another and are simply our perceptions of the way environments react to the Earth’s rotation and tilt. They are not strictly opposites because the absence of light and presence of light are not “opposing” states but rather the natural shift in photons and our ability to retain vision as those shifts occur. Night and day would mean very different things if our perception of light were more acute, so yes, it is in many ways a subjective matter to consider them “opposites.”
Black and white are also not in opposition but are rather reactions of physical surfaces to the emission of light, varying in shade, depth, and quality based on both inherent and external factors such as texture, angle, and the material state the surface relates to (liquid black vs solid, opaque white vs opalesque, etc). We call them opposites because we perceive these hues to occupy two different ends of a spectrum, but the reality is that they are simply different reflections of photons that our eyes then translate into color (white being a broad or spaced out array of hues, black being a compact or close mesh of colors). They are not in true opposition. We just perceived them that way.
One could also ask: in a piece that deals specifically with subjective mores and personal perception, if the average person would view my point as being about false opposites and would not be caught up in the detailed mechanics of my metaphor’s scientific underpinnings, did I not achieve the purpose of my piece? Whose perceptions are truly in context or relevant in this situation? If a piece is in no way related to the physically scientific principles or disciplines, is there truly a mistake being made when metaphors rely on colloquial meanings? Writers like me deal in the transmission of ideas and perspectives. When you seek to apply absolutes to that realm, you end up convoluting your point and will not engage an audience. Presumably you are not, in fact, a writer — perhaps because you simply do not think like one. Nothing wrong with that and in the proper contexts that is just as valuable as my own way of thinking.
More to the point, why would that particular element of my piece be something you’d find problematic? Are you actually motivated by the urge to engage with my work’s themes and perspectives? If not, what is the purpose of commenting besides feeling superior and seeking to appear “more” intelligent than someone else, in this case me, the writer?
My problem is your motive. I’ve seen lots of comments just like yours and they are always made by people with a very self-focused agenda. This was fun, though, and hopefully you are the exception to that rule. Best to you!
