Harry Pollard wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> The trouble with models is they all too often bear no relationship to
> reality. This is true of the models you mention, and is agonizingly true of
> such super modelling turned out by the Global Warming computers.
[snip]
I simply cannot imagine a man (woman, eunuch...) without a
model. One simply cannot perceive without a "mindset".
Some models are -- OK: "seem" -- better than others, for
good (OK: what seem to whoever to be "good") reasons. This
level of problematicity is -- seems to me --
appropriately dealt with in the arcana of
Husserlean phenomenology, Gadamerean hermeneutics,
Goffman-ean sociology and what some famous
anthropologist called: "thick description". It's
also dealt with by the emploiyee who smells out
how his or her manager is "a crock".
Well, what about supercomputer models of Global Climate
Change? Just think: If we did not have computers, and if
we did not have telegraphy, we might not even know there was
a globe, much less that our greenhouse emissions
were doing anything other than blocking
out the sun over our own heads and giving us
asthma.
There is a classic Japanese haiku, which reads:
Because it does not know
autumn has come,
The puppy is naturally enlightened.
???
\brad mccormick (I really do have an obtuse name -- I even
keep making mistakes typing it!)
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
