I think we 'feel' different flavors of meaning behind some words. It is hard to 
put my 'finger' on it, and what I try to identify may be underdeveloped, but I 
have a feeling of an assumption to be on the verge of a priori constructing a 
situation into which I feed my stuff, while hypothesis is a joggling with the 
stuff to make it work (if...).  In other - insufficient - words: (maybe) 
assumptiom is a frame, hypothesis a content-fill. The relations come from a 
base in Latin - learned "in" Hungarian. Englicising only later. 
With 'model' it is different. I erred away from the sense of "modeling" as 
making up some (technical or not) (fitting or not) 'metaphor' to explain or 
apply complicated terms. 
Like: a mathematical (electrical?) model of a construct. 
I use "model" in the way of cutting out the applicable part from the totality 
which we want to observe (handle) and concentrate only to the 'part' within the 
selected boundaries. In this sense our sciences are 'models' towards the topic 
they handle. This view is what I call 'reductionist' (a model-view). 
Don't tell me that this is wrong, a 3rd person opinion is just the 1st person 
opinion of somebody else. If the vocabularies are irreparably estray, we can 
agree that we do not agree. I am listening to arguments and it did happen many 
times that I changed my views. It is always a 'personal' judgment and I feel 
open to my doing so. Not because the 'authority' of the 'other' view. 
You touched a sensitive point: what is 'science' and which one? compendium of 
explanations? Quatizing the qualia? (to be facetious: digitalizing the analog?)

John M
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brent Meeker 
  Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:00 AM
  Subject: Re: Quick Quantum Question.

  John M wrote:
  > Breent
  > your distortion of my words may come from my mindset of a 
  > non-IndoEuropean mothertongue - in English.
  > I wrote:
  >  >".../by building further levels on unfounded
  >  > assumptions - no matter how fit they may be > to a theory we favor...</
  > you wrote:
  >  >You imply that our theories are just a matter of "favor". <
  > As I understand it has a different meaning. I imply nothing. I presume 
  > we have a similar idea about 'scientific method': not  restricted to 
  > reductionist model-views, yet the 'preaching' I got about it does not 
  > rely to my text. I may 'favor' (i.e. like better than another one)  a 
  > theory freely. An nth level of conclusions - based on an idea I may not 
  > approve - may be a likeable formula, I keep my mind free enough. IMO it 
  > does not 'fit' into MY 'scientific method', because the original startup 
  > was an assumption on maybe shaky grounds. 

  What's the difference between starting with an hypothesis and an assumption?  
Isn't that step one in the scientific method?

  >I trust my sense of 
  > 'scientific' logic because it landed to me 38 patent-approvals. 
  > (=Pudding test).
  > BM:
  > "There's a difference between wishful speculation and informed 
  > extrapolation... "
  > The question is: what is the 'information' based on? If on a model-based 
  > selective (statistical?) assumption, oops: calculative explanation, 
  > and extrapolated into beyond-model areas, 

  The whole point of a model is to extrapolate (and interpolate) to unobserved 
cases - otherwise science could just be a compendium of data.

  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