8 ms·

I use their model of reality all the time when arranging things in my house. Like Newton's formulae it works well in certain contexts, even though Einstein prov

I use their model of reality all the time when arranging things in my house. Like Newton's formulae it works well in certain contexts, even though Einstein proved Newton wrong.

mfoy_ 7y ago
This is a bad analogy that makes it sound like you're defending flat-earthers. It's like saying you use Hermeticism's Principle of Rhythm to build a pendulum-powered clock... And unlike both Flat-Earth theory and Hermetics, Newton was actually demonstrably right. Flat-earthers and Hermeticists spin their theories out of whole cloth.
- ModelTheorist12 7y ago
  The shape of the Earth is just a model [1] - an approximation. All models have margins of error. All models are wrong, some are useful [2]. The map is not the territory [3]. All scientific models are scale variant [4] e.g contextual. Scientific models are pragmatic at best. Useful for a particular purpose within some domain of applicability When last did you take the curvature of the Earth into account when arranging your furniture? Of course, you can always dismiss my perspective as "Just another nihilistic, depressed anti-realist" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance
  - username90 7y ago
    > When last did you take the curvature of the Earth into account when arranging your furniture? I don't do that, but neither do I assume that the entire earth is flat just because my living room is. Saying that all theories are born equal is nonsense, some things are more correct than others.
    - ModelTheorist12 7y ago
      It doesn't matter what we SAY about the shape of the Earth though, does it? It only matters how we use/apply those theories in practice. Practical errors have consequences. Theoretical errors don't. It's just lip service without follow-through. I can SAY that the Earth is triangular and nothing will happen. Q.E.D If you insist that it is in (some way) wrong or incorrect for me to say that the Earth is triangular. Well. The best I can do is to tell you to mind your own business. I can't remember the last time the Earth's shape mattered to my practical, decision-making process.
      - username90 7y ago
        But when you go out and try to spread your gospel that the earth is triangular then people will correctly tell you to shut up and read some books before arguing further.
        ModelTheorist12 7y ago
        So can I tell you "shut up and consult some geodesic models" when you spread the gospel that Earth is round? Because strictly and Mathematically speaking, Earth is NOT round. It's NOT spherical or oblate either. Why do you selectively reject some approximations (models!), but accept others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Terrestrial_Reference_System_1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Terrestrial_Reference... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System
      - gfodor 7y ago
        Not necessarily. David Deutche argues that theories can be argued as having merit based upon if they are good or bad explanations, regardless of application. A good explanation is one that fits the data and is hard to vary. The flat earth theory fails on both.
        ModelTheorist12 7y ago
        Given a finite data set, an infinite number of functions/curves can explain it. This is curve-fitting 101 stuff. All explanatory models are either an over-fit or an under-fit to the data. With the fine print being "acceptable error rate". "The Earth is flat" may be wrong, but it could be acceptably wrong to me. This is tackled by model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ) and by this paper "To explain or to predict" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf )
  - lidHanteyk 7y ago
    The curvature of the Earth is already accounted for; my house sits upon a foundation of poured concrete which is leveled off and flattened locally. In this way, we also accounted for the gravitational geoid variation around the house. Honestly, I have to compensate more for the curvature of the floorboards!
- brlewis 7y ago
  To be clear, the flat earth theory is wrong, I don't subscribe to it, and yes I'm defending flat-earthers. I reserve the right to defend people I disagree with, and to point out ways that wrong ideas can occasionally translate into useful interactions with reality.

I use their model of reality all the time when arranging things in my house. Like Newton's formulae it works well in certain contexts, even though Einstein proved Newton wrong.

mfoy_ 7y ago

This is a bad analogy that makes it sound like you're defending flat-earthers. It's like saying you use Hermeticism's Principle of Rhythm to build a pendulum-powered clock... And unlike both Flat-Earth theory and Hermetics, Newton was actually demonstrably right. Flat-earthers and Hermeticists spin their theories out of whole cloth.

ModelTheorist12 7y ago
The shape of the Earth is just a model [1] - an approximation. All models have margins of error. All models are wrong, some are useful [2]. The map is not the territory [3]. All scientific models are scale variant [4] e.g contextual. Scientific models are pragmatic at best. Useful for a particular purpose within some domain of applicability When last did you take the curvature of the Earth into account when arranging your furniture? Of course, you can always dismiss my perspective as "Just another nihilistic, depressed anti-realist" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance
- username90 7y ago
  > When last did you take the curvature of the Earth into account when arranging your furniture? I don't do that, but neither do I assume that the entire earth is flat just because my living room is. Saying that all theories are born equal is nonsense, some things are more correct than others.
  - ModelTheorist12 7y ago
    It doesn't matter what we SAY about the shape of the Earth though, does it? It only matters how we use/apply those theories in practice. Practical errors have consequences. Theoretical errors don't. It's just lip service without follow-through. I can SAY that the Earth is triangular and nothing will happen. Q.E.D If you insist that it is in (some way) wrong or incorrect for me to say that the Earth is triangular. Well. The best I can do is to tell you to mind your own business. I can't remember the last time the Earth's shape mattered to my practical, decision-making process.
    - username90 7y ago
      But when you go out and try to spread your gospel that the earth is triangular then people will correctly tell you to shut up and read some books before arguing further.
      - ModelTheorist12 7y ago
        So can I tell you "shut up and consult some geodesic models" when you spread the gospel that Earth is round? Because strictly and Mathematically speaking, Earth is NOT round. It's NOT spherical or oblate either. Why do you selectively reject some approximations (models!), but accept others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Terrestrial_Reference_System_1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Terrestrial_Reference... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System
    - gfodor 7y ago
      Not necessarily. David Deutche argues that theories can be argued as having merit based upon if they are good or bad explanations, regardless of application. A good explanation is one that fits the data and is hard to vary. The flat earth theory fails on both.
      - ModelTheorist12 7y ago
        Given a finite data set, an infinite number of functions/curves can explain it. This is curve-fitting 101 stuff. All explanatory models are either an over-fit or an under-fit to the data. With the fine print being "acceptable error rate". "The Earth is flat" may be wrong, but it could be acceptably wrong to me. This is tackled by model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ) and by this paper "To explain or to predict" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf )
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  The curvature of the Earth is already accounted for; my house sits upon a foundation of poured concrete which is leveled off and flattened locally. In this way, we also accounted for the gravitational geoid variation around the house. Honestly, I have to compensate more for the curvature of the floorboards!
brlewis 7y ago
To be clear, the flat earth theory is wrong, I don't subscribe to it, and yes I'm defending flat-earthers. I reserve the right to defend people I disagree with, and to point out ways that wrong ideas can occasionally translate into useful interactions with reality.