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

[Eric Charles]

Glen,
I mean... assuming I know what you mean by "obtuse"... which I'm not sure
of... an "obtuse model" could be useful for many, many things... but the
more obtuse it is, the less one can science with it... so it is not useful
regarding where the future chapter of that book are headed. I would readily
agree that being more explicit about that could help some readers come
along with us into those later chapters.

For example, an obtuse model could be useful in creating a clever lyrical
scheme, or inducing intended confusion (such as economic models offered by
politicians), or in spurring a creative writing assignment (many science
fiction and fantasy gimmicks are intriguing in proportion to their
obtuseness), etc. But if our goal is to act as a community to
systematically test a scientific theory, we need some agreement... not
perfect agreement, but certainly some agreement... regarding what the
theory predicts.

Bloodhound Gang, for example, has lyrics that are often a fascinating mix
of transparent bits and obtuse bits that fit the rhythm beautifully....
here is a stanza from "Bad Touch"...

> Come quicker than Fed Ex,
> never reaching apex,
> just like Coca-Cola stock you are inclined,
> to make me rise an hour early just like Daylight Savings Time


Solid music (at least, I think so), but not exactly something to do science
with.

As for the "artifact" thing... it would be useful to have a term for what
you are getting at... but Nick and I have never been able to settle on one,
and I'm not sure "artifact" works. I want to talk about the "actual thing
we are talking about", but at times that seems to make people think I'm
asserting some sort of Kantian claim about the existence of a
never-knowable "Ding an sich", which is not anywhere I want to go in the
conversation. Several other possible terms seem to slip towards substance
dualism. And then at some point Nick goes down a rabbit hole of insisting
that it is "models all the way down", which might be true in some sense
(maybe), but not in the sense we are discussing (see my slapping him around
a few emails back in this chain). In the end, whether I am right or wrong,
I think there is value in fighting to NOT create a technical term to serve
that purpose, and just insist in every separate instance on being clear
about the non-model thing we are talking about, i.e., in the conversation
about how trains switch tracks, in which Nick starts to talk about how the
model train switches track, the actual trains switching actual tracks in
the actual thing we are trying to explain. I think there are some points in
the book  as it stands, where I allow/use the term "explanandum
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanandum_and_explanans>" which is an
already established term that gets at the distinction reasonably well, but
I try to keep even that to a minimum.

Best,
Eric

-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
American University - Adjunct Instructor
<echarles at american.edu>


On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> [sigh] Fine. We can change what I wrote from:
>
>   "artifact = model absent the usage context"
> to
>   "artifact = model in a non-modeling context"
>
> The toy train isn't a useful example for this distinction. But a wooden
> sphere as a model for, say, a baseball, *is* a useful example. In the
> "sphere models baseball" context, "model" is properly used. But in another
> context, say, roll the wooden sphere down a ramp to measure gravity, the
> sphere is no longer a model and a word like "artifact" would be better when
> pointing to the sphere.
>
> It's very difficult for me to imagine you *not* already having thought of
> this yourself. So, by "listening generously", I would have expected you to
> understand my phrases like "absent it's contextual analogies" and such. I
> feel the same way about my description of how obtuse models can be useful.
> It's difficult for me to imagine you haven't *already* considered parallax
> and expressibility. And although I appreciate playing at being naive, or
> practicing the Socratic method, part of "listening generously" is to "steel
> man" others' conceptual constructs (as opposed to "straw man").
>
> In these 2 recent episodes, you could easily have imagined and described
> to *me* how obtuse models *might* be found useful. And you could easily
> have changed "absent context" to "in a non-modeling context".
>
> On 1/16/20 8:59 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> > I am not sure I understand what you say here.  But I like the idea of
> "listening generously" and I am trying to do it.  I guess my problem in
> understanding is that I don't think we perceive anything other than in a
> context.  Like the gorilla walking through the basketball game, we just
> don't see it.  I don't think it's possible to see Eric and not see him
> intending.  (or, say, sleeping).  This may, in fact, be an argument in
> favor of your position.  I just haven't worked it out yet.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200117/ddbb1a29/attachment.html>