Eric,
I apologize forwhat may seem sophomoric smarminess but….. To me, you are a model, right? Whatever you are, it is my model of you with which I am dealing. So, when you intend something by a model, it is a case of a model intending a model, right? So, models intend, right? So why not just say so, in the first instance. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Eric Charles Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply 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". On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 1:13 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote: Did Epstein ever respond to your criticism? For what little it's worth, I disagree with your lesson. Obtuse models can be very useful. In fact, there's good reason to believe you will *never* actually understand how your model works, any more than you'll ever understand how that model's referent(s) work. I may even be able to use Pierce to argue that to you. 8^) On 1/15/20 9:23 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > The lesson is, if you > don’t understand how your model works, you aren’t doing yourself any favors > by inventing it. This led to my war with Epstein in the pages of JSSS about > the relation between explanation and prediction. -- ☣ 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/ <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ 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-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
