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

[uǝlƃ ☣]

[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