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.
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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 -
The only bit I'm not sure about is the final conclusion. The rest, yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Whose final conclussion?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Haha so much confusion
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
"& comm benefits..."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I see it as being neutral, in that it's neither completely benign nor malign.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Without the specifics of an interaction I would keep a neutral prior. That is: I can communicate with people neither because of nor facilitated by nor despite us having slightly different understanding.
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.