@skdh @_julesh_ @ejpatters @JadeMasterMath The only philosophy we will ever need: I) A model is an image of "some reality". Whether that reality is "objective", fictional, another model is of no concern here. What is of concern is that a model leaves out some parts of the ... 1/2
... reality it aims to capture, and that any model has a purpose. II) Scientists are those actors engaging in "scientific models", which we will simply define as having "scientific purpose". One may argue that I have just escaped the definition of science and scientists here, 2/n
-
-
but by including the purpose, we admit that have different interests that they may legitimately express. We admit climate denial science, and how-can-I-construct-a-research-problem-that-I-can-get-funding-for kind of science. Actors need to constantly re-evaluate 3/n
Prikaži ovu nit -
the definition/positions of their colleagues match theirs, and many kinds of science are going to be subjective and not interesting. III) Once some notion of scientific purpose is fixed, it becomes possible to talk about "better" models. The value of reproducibility 4/n
Prikaži ovu nit -
or formal verifiability or concerns of ethical nature is not isolated from the question of purpose. Finally IV) The whole activity of modeling can "go wrong" in multiple ways: the pre-conceived "reality" is wrong, or the reality is right but the model is wrong, or both are 5/n
Prikaži ovu nit -
"right", but the consensus on what constitutes the purpose of the modeling activity changed. This explains paradigm shift / "scientific revolution", "anything goes" but also ongoing debates. kthnxbye. 6/n=6
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.