John M wrote:
> --- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .....skip
> I'm sure your professors will be disappointed to hear
> that their hard won theories are inconsistent 
> with thought.
> JM:
> and so would be all who's 'working' paradigm changed
> in the continuation of the epistemic enrichment - and:
> not 'inconsistent' and not 'thought', I referred just
> to consider deemable as a belief based on the science
> mindset rather than on the mystic-religious one. I did
> not even refer to obsolescence, only to a parallel
> between the workings of different belief-systems. 

So you have replaced "narrow models" with "mystic-religious" ones?  I have 
difficult parsing " 
referred just to consider deemable as a belief".

> Inconsistent those ideas became only in due course
> when a newer paradigm changed the ways of speculation.
> And I am speaking here about the boundary-limited,
> (topically etc. 'identified') conventional -
> reductionist sciences (the only one our mind can work
> in including mine of course). 
> (Earlier-JM:)
>>If I give in now to the quark, there
>>is no stop all the way to back to physics 101. 
> BM:
> Forget quarks.  How about giant sea squids?  I've
> never seen one of those either and no one has seen 
> one alive.  Or a DNA molecule?  Or Plato?  If your
> thought has led you to discard all "narrow 
> models", what do you think about?
> Brent Meeker
> JM:
> Of course I do not discard the cognitive inventory -
> collected over the past millennia, all according to
> the observational skills of the time and explained 
> (reductionistically) at the 'then' level of knowledge.
>  The fact that our ongoing explanations about 
> (sub)atomic or molecular models go out from  any
> 'matterly' concept does not mean that if I bounce into
> a stone it does not hurt. We just reached a point with
> starting to consider more interconnectedness and
> involvement beyond the 'boundaries' of convention. 
> Isn't this list aiming at such thinking (in a (IMO)
> specialized domain? 
> Your question is a good one, I wish I had already a
> well defined answer "WHAT" I am thinking about. Ask
> Armstrong, who walked on the Moon, how it would feel
> on a planet in another galaxy. "Different!" for sure.
> I am not denying the 'existence' of unseeable etc.
> features  only the firm explanations based on our
> (insufficient) knowkedge for the unknown. 

They are "firm" on in the sense of being definite.  The very point of using the 
word "model" is to 
remind us that they are not reality itself, but only a map of reality.

> conclusions for beyond the model. 
> I have examples: I formulated model-based conclusions
> over a half century R&D work. - Successfully.

The question is, have you ever formed any conclusions or had any thoughts that 
were *not* model based.

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to