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

Reply via email to