3 ms·

I disagree. It’s true that we are used to thinking of gravitation as a theory that was double checked with data, but it is also pretty clear that good physical

by ckrapu 4y ago

I disagree. It’s true that we are used to thinking of gravitation as a theory that was double checked with data, but it is also pretty clear that good physical arguments are strong priors. Then, with experimental data, we have a classic prior + data posterior update which does cast all of this as a statistical model.

pfortuny 4y ago
That is not at all the way Newton thought, though.
aj7 4y ago
Then all scientific theories are “models.” And we are just very advanced “computers.” Nope. The first sentence is wrong. And the second sentence is why we play the game.
- xapata 4y ago
  Is the use of those quoted words what you dislike? Would you have a different sense of it if we replaced those words with "foo" and "bar" so that we could use more nuanced concepts?
- pdonis 4y ago
  > all scientific theories are “models.” That's correct. They are. As the saying goes, all models are wrong but some are useful. > And we are just very advanced “computers.” To a physicalist, yes, this is true.
- dekhn 4y ago
  I think you're coming at this from a dogmatic interpretation and it's making it hard for you to see the alternate perspective. All scientific theories are models; that's generally considered true by nearly all scientists. What would a theory be if it's not a model?
- bmitc 4y ago
  > Then all scientific theories are “models.” I may be missing the context of what you mean by model and somewhat agree with your original critique of Norvig's comment. However, scientific theories are nothing but models. For example, general relativity is not gravity but is instead a model of gravity. Quantum mechanics describes quantum behavior but it is not quantum behavior. It is a model of quantum behavior. When physicists say "is", they mean "is modeled by" or "is a model of", whether they think so or not. None of the mathematics, or physics, or what have you is the actual thing. They are nothing but models of the actual thing that have varying degrees of accuracy and precision.

by ckrapu 4y ago

pfortuny 4y ago

That is not at all the way Newton thought, though.

aj7 4y ago

Then all scientific theories are “models.” And we are just very advanced “computers.” Nope. The first sentence is wrong. And the second sentence is why we play the game.

xapata 4y ago
Is the use of those quoted words what you dislike? Would you have a different sense of it if we replaced those words with "foo" and "bar" so that we could use more nuanced concepts?
pdonis 4y ago
> all scientific theories are “models.” That's correct. They are. As the saying goes, all models are wrong but some are useful. > And we are just very advanced “computers.” To a physicalist, yes, this is true.
dekhn 4y ago
I think you're coming at this from a dogmatic interpretation and it's making it hard for you to see the alternate perspective. All scientific theories are models; that's generally considered true by nearly all scientists. What would a theory be if it's not a model?
bmitc 4y ago
> Then all scientific theories are “models.” I may be missing the context of what you mean by model and somewhat agree with your original critique of Norvig's comment. However, scientific theories are nothing but models. For example, general relativity is not gravity but is instead a model of gravity. Quantum mechanics describes quantum behavior but it is not quantum behavior. It is a model of quantum behavior. When physicists say "is", they mean "is modeled by" or "is a model of", whether they think so or not. None of the mathematics, or physics, or what have you is the actual thing. They are nothing but models of the actual thing that have varying degrees of accuracy and precision.