@JCSkewesDK @twitemp1 @IrisVanRooij Relevant to your discussion in the last few days.https://twitter.com/psmaldino/status/938822369082142721 …
-
-
This looks very relevant indeed! cc
@o_guest1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The Cubist chicken bit is sweet.

2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Lol it’s like so much of communication. We think we’re talking about the same thing and we understand each other because we never define things or state our assumptions. It’s almost like our social wellbeing depends on not defining things
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
TBH I do not agree that everything must be defined — Socratic fallacy, etc. But yes, I still agree with the spirit of your point: models do allow/promote/facilitate/enforce formalisation [if not always a clear semantic definition] which is extremely important.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I've worked on models where the implementations were for all intents and purposes identical and yet the models utterly different. Mind boggling.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Oh I wasn’t talking about models or modeling in general really. I just thought the cubist chicken story was a good model (haha) for human communication in general.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Ah, gotcha. Doesn't the Socratic fallacy still apply though? I can have a conversation with a 5 year old about cows, no problem, but ask them to define a cow and they will struggle to give an exhaustive definition.
-
-
That’s kind of what I meant I think. Cubist chicken guys wouldn’t have so much fun if they defined their chickens 1st & we wouldn’t be able to communicate if we tried to define everything. We mostly seem to operate without clear definitions & comm benefits from that obscurity.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 13 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.