Brent, you ask the tuppence (or million $) questions.
--- Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> 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
>
> jamikes.domain.name.hidden 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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Aug 25 2006 - 15:27:38 PDT