3 ms·
So let me try to understand what you're saying here, and correct me if I'm wrong. Is this a mischaracterization of a subset of your claim: "Scientists do not c
by beebmam 5y ago
So let me try to understand what you're saying here, and correct me if I'm wrong.
Is this a mischaracterization of a subset of your claim: "Scientists do not care if their models are truthful, but they do care that their models are useful."?
- jchw 5y agoWell, kind of. Models are inherently not absolute truths. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be models.
- hcrean 5y agoOr is there just a correlation between truthfulness and usefulness of a model...
- ukj 5y agoNo. “False” models can still make accurate and useful predictions. The Ptolemaic/geocentric models still work, even if the mathematics are a bit unwieldy.
- bombcar 5y agoThey work well enough that navigation can still be done by them (apparently the tables/math is easier than the “correct” ones).
- ukj 5y agoYes. Something to that effect. Truth is a philosophical notion. It is not the concern of science. I am aligned with model-dependent realism; or epistemic constructivism or thereabouts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_science) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_...
- beebmam 5y agoOn a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is no confidence and 100 is 100% certainty, how confident are you in your belief of this philosophy of Constructivism?
- ukj 5y agoSorry, I am unable to assign any meaning to your question. I don’t have confidence IN my beliefs. I have confidence in the usefulness of my mental toolbox. On a scale of 0 to 100 how confident are you in your belief of this science?