glen e. p. ropella wrote:
This bit of rhetoric suggests a pretty interesting "model" of your (our) engagement here. In any case, I think I'll take another helping of gravy.Quoting Nicholas Thompson circa 09-11-25 09:36 AM: I would counter that models are often *expressed* in rhetoric, not sub-types of rhetoric. Just as models are sometimes *implemented* in simulations rather than simulations being types of models. Can you give us more justification for subsuming modeling into rhetoric? I think it is time for Doug to get out his random-philosophy-generator to demonstrate once more that one can simulate rhetoric which has no model. But then I would be forced to ask what model of rhetoric the random-philosophy-generator is based on. Can one write a simulation without a model? And that some rhetoric does not *express* any specific consistent model.Not all rhetoric constitutes a model. In my lexicon, a model is presumed to have a referent but there are many, many, many unvalidated models in the world (perhaps you call these theories, hypotheses, etc.) whose referent's qualities and perhaps even existence is still in question. I do not know what a theory or even hypothesis is, if not a model. Perhaps without "proof" or "validation" it is a proto-model?I'd call your (very brief and largely detail-free) rhetoric that celebrity is an effect of being forced to handle a large # of associations and, hence a confusion between "village" and "world" trust is NOT a model. If we include David Sloan Wilson's Multi-Level Selection Theory and inference made from that theory including the above, then I still don't call that a model. I call it one of a theory, thesis, hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation. A model, in my lexicon, must have at least 2 attributes: 1) it must be an extant thing in and of itself and 2) it must have a referent. Your rhetoric has (2) but not (1). And even so, your rhetoric is way too abstract to measure actual human evolution. (Remember that "model" is derived from the same root as "measure"... e.g. a balsa wood airplane is used to measure a real airplane.) You can't measure human evolution with your rhetoric; so, even if you claim it is extant (e.g. in the form of books, video or audio recordings of lectures, etc), it's still quite a stretch to call it a model. Well said...p.s. And YES, I know lots of people will claim that lots of people will disagree with my use of the word "model", here. But I hope you realize now that it doesn't much matter to me whether lots of people disagree with my use of the word model, especially if those disagreeing people aren't professional modelers. And don't expect me to believe that pro persuaders (who make their living building rhetoric) are pro modelers. While pro modelers _are_ pro persuaders, pro persuaders are not necessarily pro modelers. ;-) Some of us (entreprenuers) live by the motto: Model to Persuade; Persuade to Model For the most part, those who fund modeling (and simulation) are seeking to justify their own rhetoric, not inform it. And those of us who seek such funding are relegated to using our own rhetoric to obtain those funded modeling projects. My own rhetoric (used mostly in the privacy of my own head) is that I knowingly model in support of other's rhetoric to obtain the funds to allow me to do my own model development in the pursuit of a higher truth. My model of "a higher truth" includes objective reality and does not admit to supernatural beings or forces. It has been proven to my satisfaction that I cannot validate this model. e.g. I cannot prove that there is an objective reality. Therefore *all* of my models are ultimately grounded in a model which I cannot prove a valid referent. That only slows me down when I'm in a particularly philosophical mood. The rest of the time I proceed blithely. On a good day, we might have the luxury of choosing the models we build based on more criteria than whether they will be funded or not. All the brouhaha in the Right-Wingnut-World about the uncovered "Hoax" of global warming would seem to be a good test case. There is *clearly* a huge amount of rhetoric on all sides of the topic. There *are* numerous relevant models, validated to different degrees. Few, if any, support the rhetoric of "humans have not, will not, cannot influence the global climate!!!!!" It does not surprise me that some modelers (scientists studying climate) might have given over to adjusting/selecting/interpreting their models to fit the rhetoric of their funders. It is even less surprising that those whose rhetoric is in opposition to that rhetoric would attempt to justify their *own* rhetoric based on this failure on the part of the individuals/institutions in question to be entirely unbiased in every way. </series of segues> Model on, - Steve |
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
