Brent, you ask the tuppence (or million $) questions. --- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: 1:> But is this different than trying to think of new > models?< Somebody suggested (on another list) that "MY" model is the unlimited universe. I could not argue, yet it is a "limited" model, since our present<G> knowledge is limited to the up-to-date epistemic cognitive inventory. This is why I feel comfortable to plead to be ignorant. (Irrespective of the 'truth' that I am). ---and--- 2:>...- 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.< My poor brain is also reductionistic in my thinking, I cannot encompass the totality either. So I think in models, but always keep that in mind: avoid drawing conclusions upon the wholeness from results extracted from a limited model view. (Or so I think). If I make some general deductions, I use cautious grammar, allowing for diverse opinions to come up. This is not the scientific way to get a title, tenure, grants, or even the smallest Nobel prize, but it is satisfactory for me. I do not persuade others to apply it. It's my way. If there is any merit in my ideas for others, be my guest -that's the reason why I proclaim them. AND: to get the counter-ideas for my perusal.
John M > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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 acceptance > of model based thinking. I'm not sure there is > another way to think about the world > - 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
