Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So that's good. 8^)
On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a > minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor? I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor. >In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in >mind? The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer. >If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of >complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or >whatever) are onion-like? Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it. > Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in > evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural > selection) seriously enough. Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
