> Brent wrote:
>>If you know the domain of your model there won't be any impact from
> beyond.  Of  course the domain is uncertain at the edges - but just because
> there is Grey doesn't  mean there is no black and white.<
> Our views (I did not press: definition) of a "model' differs. Since I
> consider the totality as interrelated and interactive and the 'model' a
> topical cut as the object of our observation (c.f.: sciences) those
> boundaries we surround our (my) models are 'cutting off' the rest of the
> world. With all the influence it may have on events BENEATH those (selected)
> boundaries.
> I am not talking about a grey area.
> *
>>Should we then resort mystical thinking or armchair philosophizing or
> theological revelation?<
> I do not call your wording an argumentation (style?) ad hominem,
> if you know no better variant, you can refer to any one that comes to your
> mind. Finally:
>>Can you do some other kind of thinking?<
> The answer is: YES, for one there are things to which I respond
> "I dunno" but try to think in new ways which does not mean that I also
> completed it.

But is this different than trying to think of new models?

> To know about something that is not perfect does not imply the obligation to
> 'perfect it' at the same time. 

I'm not asking that you perfect anything.  You ask that we not be led into 
of model based thinking.  I'm not sure there is another way to think about the 
- my poor brain is not up to thinking the world in it's entirety; hence I 
resort to 
models.  So I'm asking for an example or even a description of how you think we 
should think about the world, while avoiding models.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to