ModelTheorist12

8 ms·

1.
by ModelTheorist12 7y ago
You seem to be agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone. Instrumentalism [1] is precisely what I am rooting for. That's exactly what I said in my OP: "All scientific models are scale variant e.g contextual." >You can't
2.
by ModelTheorist12 7y ago
No different to "round-earthers" using technology which uses "flat earth" as a simplifying assumption in the design (hello! Google Maps). Neither party seems to want to acknowledge that the other party's model work
3.
by ModelTheorist12 7y ago
I used it yes. I didn't design it. In all the times I've used a GPS - the shape of the Earth mattered not one bit to me.
4.
by ModelTheorist12 7y ago
Given a finite data set, an infinite number of functions/curves can explain it. This is curve-fitting 101 stuff. All explanatory models are either an over-fit or an under-fit to the data. With the fine print being "acceptable erro
5.
by ModelTheorist12 7y ago
So can I tell you "shut up and consult some geodesic models" when you spread the gospel that Earth is round? Because strictly and Mathematically speaking, Earth is NOT round. It's NOT spherical or oblate either. Why d
6.
by ModelTheorist12 7y ago
Furthermore you are arguing my point. Relativism. >some things are more correct than others. On the relative scale of "very incorrect" to "very correct" descriptions of Earth's shape where does "real" s
7.
by ModelTheorist12 7y ago
It doesn't matter what we SAY about the shape of the Earth though, does it? It only matters how we use/apply those theories in practice. Practical errors have consequences. Theoretical errors don't. It's just lip service
8.
by ModelTheorist12 7y ago
The shape of the Earth is just a model [1] - an approximation. All models have margins of error. All models are wrong, some are useful [2]. The map is not the territory [3]. All scientific models are scale variant [4] e.g contextual. Scient