Brent:
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
To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
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 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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Mar 04 2007 - 08:42:23 PST