5 ms·

I have watched Adam Curtis' documentaries and understand the context of that quote. It's not wrong. Scientists have models for the natural world that are fanta

I have watched Adam Curtis' documentaries and understand the context of that quote. It's not wrong. Scientists have models for the natural world that are fantasies. Scientific models intentionally simplify reality in order to be able to analyze them. It is arguable with our current understanding of reality that a perfect model of an aspect of reality will never be possible with quantum uncertainty. Most of what you've said in your comment is non sequitur, and I suggest you edit it out.

komali2 9y ago
>Most of what you've said in your comment is non sequitur, and I suggest you edit it out. I believe this is unnecessarily rude. I appreciated the content of your comment but I feel your mild personal attack devalues it.
- beebmam 9y ago
  I don't. It wasn't a personal attack. I think he jumps to conclusions that are unwarranted, and I'm asking him to kindly edit them out. In no way did I attack his person.
  - sgt101 9y ago
    In the same spirit I perceive that you that telling people to remove comments that you don't agree with reduces my opportunities to read and consider them. Please refrain from doing this.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Comments like par for the course in humanities [...] often used to let artists have their feelings aren't terribly polite either, freighted as they are with implications of intellectual inferiority. Since that poster can dish out criticism, I'm sure he can take some in return.
joe_the_user 9y ago
Using simplification to make predictions about reality ≠ "having a fantasy". The entire mode of operation of science involves being aware that one's approach is less than absolutely accurate. The advance of science certainly debunked vitalist views of nature as some irreducible essence. It's a "common trope" to equate to such debunking into turning nature into a machine but nature itself remains as it is regardless of our ideas.
- beebmam 9y ago
  Disagree. A model is not reality, and is indeed a fantasy. Scientists should be (and usually are) well aware of this. Importantly, the documentary explores some historical examples of where these models were used to attempt to understand, predict, and shape human behavior. Some might find the use of models in these ways immoral, and in my opinion the documentary does a pretty good job of exploring it.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    The linguistic sense of the fantasy is of an idea of dubious value. But you (and the OP) seem to take position that one can use the term for any idea. If we're going to operate that way, I could just as well say that your claim that "A model is not reality, and is indeed a fantasy." is itself a "fantasy".

komali2 9y ago

>Most of what you've said in your comment is non sequitur, and I suggest you edit it out. I believe this is unnecessarily rude. I appreciated the content of your comment but I feel your mild personal attack devalues it.

beebmam 9y ago
I don't. It wasn't a personal attack. I think he jumps to conclusions that are unwarranted, and I'm asking him to kindly edit them out. In no way did I attack his person.
- sgt101 9y ago
  In the same spirit I perceive that you that telling people to remove comments that you don't agree with reduces my opportunities to read and consider them. Please refrain from doing this.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Comments like par for the course in humanities [...] often used to let artists have their feelings aren't terribly polite either, freighted as they are with implications of intellectual inferiority. Since that poster can dish out criticism, I'm sure he can take some in return.

joe_the_user 9y ago

Using simplification to make predictions about reality ≠ "having a fantasy". The entire mode of operation of science involves being aware that one's approach is less than absolutely accurate. The advance of science certainly debunked vitalist views of nature as some irreducible essence. It's a "common trope" to equate to such debunking into turning nature into a machine but nature itself remains as it is regardless of our ideas.

beebmam 9y ago
Disagree. A model is not reality, and is indeed a fantasy. Scientists should be (and usually are) well aware of this. Importantly, the documentary explores some historical examples of where these models were used to attempt to understand, predict, and shape human behavior. Some might find the use of models in these ways immoral, and in my opinion the documentary does a pretty good job of exploring it.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  The linguistic sense of the fantasy is of an idea of dubious value. But you (and the OP) seem to take position that one can use the term for any idea. If we're going to operate that way, I could just as well say that your claim that "A model is not reality, and is indeed a fantasy." is itself a "fantasy".