[FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[uǝlƃ ☣]

To be clear I did NOT assert that a model means something on its own. Nor did I ask what the model intends. I do see a risk that others might go in that direction, though.

In fact, I agree completely that models are only models by way of analogy. I'd also claim that referents can be models of their models. (Invertible analogies.)


On 1/15/20 12:26 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> There is an interesting issue that often comes up in these contexts, in which someone asserts that the models mean something all on their own.  If it is someone who has picked up our language,  they might,  for example,  ask "What does the model intend? The Model, itself? "
> 
> Glen does this by saying "there's good reason to believe you will *never* actually understand how your model works."
> 
> I have seen Nick oscillate in those discussions, towards and away from thinking he needs to rewrite everything.  
> 
> I insist that is not the direction should be going in.  The model doesn't intend anything.  A person,  who is offering a model,  intends something by it,  and does not intend other things.  Because THAT is what we'r are talking about.... There IS a chance (though no guarentee) that the person offering a model (fully) understands what they do or do not intend to match between the model and the situation that is modeled.  
> 
> We aren't talking about anything other than people doing things. X is "a model" if/when someone thinks an aspect of X matches something happening somewhere else,  and all models contain both intended and unintended implications.  This makes a question of whether or not someone "fully understands their model" a question primarily about the understanding,  not primarily about "the model itself". 


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ