4 ms·

Flat earth is totally fine as long as you need to simply go from village a to b and it's not too much of a distance. So all models are wrong but some are indee

Flat earth is totally fine as long as you need to simply go from village a to b and it's not too much of a distance. So all models are wrong but some are indeed useful. Darwins theory (and later modernizations) are indeed wrong (as in not true) but it's the most useful model we have.

pdonis 11y ago
> Darwins theory (and later modernizations) are indeed wrong (as in not true) Not true in what sense?
- EGreg 11y ago
  In that they don't match reality.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    In what sense do they not match reality?
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      They are reductions of reality. A decision to look at things a certain way.
      - pdonis 11y ago
        > They are reductions of reality Sure, but that doesn't mean they don't match reality. It just means they don't match all of reality; they leave information out. Of course all of our models have to leave information out, I agree with that. But that's a separate question from the question of whether the information a given model includes matches the portion of reality it is intended to model--or, better, to how good an approximation a given model matches the portion of reality it is intended to model. That's the whole point of Asimov's essay.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        that idea only make sense if you claim there is a true interpretation of reality. The only way thats the case is if there is a designer who designed it to be understood in a specific way. Otherwise no model can be representing reality in any objective way they can per definition only be interpretations (The map is not the territory). Reality don't care about true or false models. Reality has no evolution or planets or black holes. These are all interpretations at a very specific scale from a very specific perspective.
        pdonis 11y ago
        "Match reality" means "makes predictions that match what we actually observe". The model we use to make predictions can be viewed as an "interpretation", yes, but the comparison between what is predicted and what we observe is perfectly objective.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        Again. If you believe there is a right way to interpret the world. A true way, then you are saying that someone created it to be interpreted in a specific way. But models that allow us to make predictions does not mean that they match reality it just means that it matches the predictions we can interpret. Thats a very different thing than reality.
        pdonis 11y ago
        > If you believe there is a right way to interpret the world. I don't see what "interpretation" is involved in comparing a specific prediction with a specific measurement result. You're just comparing two numbers (with error bars, etc.). And the comparison doesn't care what kind of stuff you put in your model; that can be anything you like. All the comparison cares about is the numbers your model outputs as its predictions. > models that allow us to make predictions does not mean that they match reality it just means that it matches the predictions we can interpret. No, it means the model's predictions match the actual measurements we make. > Thats a very different thing than reality. Perhaps you are using a different definition of "reality" than I am. In which case I don't see how whatever definition you are using of "reality" is relevant to Asimov's article, which is what we are discussing.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>Flat earth is totally fine as long as you need to simply go from village a to b and it's not too much of a distance. Which is a more useful way of looking at it. Theories have a predictive horizon. The point of science is to increase the predictive horizon. But the other side of that is the ability to create new classes of technology. Electromagnetic theory, relativity and quantum theory are lot more than a tweak on the Newtonian world view. They make it possible to build completely new kinds of technology that are impossible if all you have is Newton. Suggesting that everything is a process of gradual refinement to an increasing number of decimal places is a wrong theory about theories. There's a lot more to science snd technology than the orbit of Mercury. >Darwins theory (and later modernizations) are indeed wrong (as in not true) but it's the most useful model we have. That may baffle people, but the problem with the Darwinian view is that it's based on the principle that species evolve - when in fact ecosystem evolve, in the sense that flows of chemicals, information, and energy self-organise into more or less stable configurations. Species evolution is an interesting epiphenomenon on top of that. But assuming it's all there is to know about natural history is like trying to understand meteorology by classifying icebergs. You're going to catch some of the more obvious patterns, but more complex relationships are going to elude you. Modelling ecosystems is a very useful skill - especially for long space flight - and it turns out we're still incredibly bad at it, precisely because naive Darwinism doesn't have the predictive horizon to deal with the problem in a useful way. Without a good theory, systems tend to diverge into instability and everything dies, no matter how fast adaptation happens - which isn't usually the outcome you want.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Yes but all this can be looked at through the "useful model" approach.

pdonis 11y ago

> Darwins theory (and later modernizations) are indeed wrong (as in not true) Not true in what sense?

EGreg 11y ago
In that they don't match reality.
- pdonis 11y ago
  In what sense do they not match reality?
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    They are reductions of reality. A decision to look at things a certain way.
    - pdonis 11y ago
      > They are reductions of reality Sure, but that doesn't mean they don't match reality. It just means they don't match all of reality; they leave information out. Of course all of our models have to leave information out, I agree with that. But that's a separate question from the question of whether the information a given model includes matches the portion of reality it is intended to model--or, better, to how good an approximation a given model matches the portion of reality it is intended to model. That's the whole point of Asimov's essay.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        that idea only make sense if you claim there is a true interpretation of reality. The only way thats the case is if there is a designer who designed it to be understood in a specific way. Otherwise no model can be representing reality in any objective way they can per definition only be interpretations (The map is not the territory). Reality don't care about true or false models. Reality has no evolution or planets or black holes. These are all interpretations at a very specific scale from a very specific perspective.
        pdonis 11y ago
        "Match reality" means "makes predictions that match what we actually observe". The model we use to make predictions can be viewed as an "interpretation", yes, but the comparison between what is predicted and what we observe is perfectly objective.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        Again. If you believe there is a right way to interpret the world. A true way, then you are saying that someone created it to be interpreted in a specific way. But models that allow us to make predictions does not mean that they match reality it just means that it matches the predictions we can interpret. Thats a very different thing than reality.
        pdonis 11y ago
        > If you believe there is a right way to interpret the world. I don't see what "interpretation" is involved in comparing a specific prediction with a specific measurement result. You're just comparing two numbers (with error bars, etc.). And the comparison doesn't care what kind of stuff you put in your model; that can be anything you like. All the comparison cares about is the numbers your model outputs as its predictions. > models that allow us to make predictions does not mean that they match reality it just means that it matches the predictions we can interpret. No, it means the model's predictions match the actual measurements we make. > Thats a very different thing than reality. Perhaps you are using a different definition of "reality" than I am. In which case I don't see how whatever definition you are using of "reality" is relevant to Asimov's article, which is what we are discussing.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

>Flat earth is totally fine as long as you need to simply go from village a to b and it's not too much of a distance. Which is a more useful way of looking at it. Theories have a predictive horizon. The point of science is to increase the predictive horizon. But the other side of that is the ability to create new classes of technology. Electromagnetic theory, relativity and quantum theory are lot more than a tweak on the Newtonian world view. They make it possible to build completely new kinds of technology that are impossible if all you have is Newton. Suggesting that everything is a process of gradual refinement to an increasing number of decimal places is a wrong theory about theories. There's a lot more to science snd technology than the orbit of Mercury. >Darwins theory (and later modernizations) are indeed wrong (as in not true) but it's the most useful model we have. That may baffle people, but the problem with the Darwinian view is that it's based on the principle that species evolve - when in fact ecosystem evolve, in the sense that flows of chemicals, information, and energy self-organise into more or less stable configurations. Species evolution is an interesting epiphenomenon on top of that. But assuming it's all there is to know about natural history is like trying to understand meteorology by classifying icebergs. You're going to catch some of the more obvious patterns, but more complex relationships are going to elude you. Modelling ecosystems is a very useful skill - especially for long space flight - and it turns out we're still incredibly bad at it, precisely because naive Darwinism doesn't have the predictive horizon to deal with the problem in a useful way. Without a good theory, systems tend to diverge into instability and everything dies, no matter how fast adaptation happens - which isn't usually the outcome you want.

ThomPete 11y ago
Yes but all this can be looked at through the "useful model" approach.