Joe

This word "model" certainly seems to causing some problems that I'm not entirely sure are fully justified, so would it be worth getting back to basics? The dictionary defines the word as "a simplified description, esp. a mathematical one, of a system or process, to assist calculations and predictions."

I think of the "system" as being our macroscopic reality, so from that perspective, the scientific model is a simplified description of that reality that allows us to understand nature in an objective manner. If we understood everything about nature then that understanding would not be a model, it would be the "system", but is science up to such a feat?(I think not). So if I suggest that science simplifies, then according to the dictionary definition Newton's laws and GR are both a model of the gravitational "system". Now this seems fairly uncontroversial to me, so is it the case that you don't see science as simplifying anything about our reality, or is it solely your dislike of the word "model" seeming to invoke a notion of underlying or distant reality as being distinct from a simplified scientific representation?

Our science at the quantum level takes the form of predictive observations, not events - there is no "particle" prior to a measurement/observation. The predicted observation of a particle is clearly a simplified description of "something" within the "complex system" that consists of us as observers and a reality that is mind independent and inaccessible. That we are forced to acknowledge an element within the "system" that is outside of our knowledge, reinforces (for me) the dictionary definition of a model as a simplified representation since we have no possibility of ever reaching this element of mind independent reality. Again, in this context, the use of the term "model" to me seems fairly uncontroversial.

I'm trying to avoid repetition from my posts, but I apologize for seemingly going over the same ground, I am having some difficulty in seeing where the problem with the use of the term model lies, and where exactly you are coming from (and why). Perhaps if we try and clarify things from basics, it may help.

Incidentally, I am reading a book at the moment on Maxwell and there is a chapter entitled "spinning cells". It seems that Maxwell formulated a mechanical model to represent current flow, magnetic and electrostatic force and electromagnetic waves consisting of cells and wheels. He also derived the ratio of electrostatic and electromagnetic units of electric charge to give c from this model.

This is what Maxwell said of the model: (from "The life of James Clerk Maxwell" by Basil Mahon)

"The conception of a particle having its motion connected with that of a vortex by perfect rolling contact may appear somewhat awkward. I do not bring it forward as a mode of connexion existing in nature, or even as that which I would willingly assent to as an electrical hypothesis. It is however, a mode of connexion which is mechanically conceivable, and easily investigated, and it serves to bring out the actual mechanical connexions between the known electromagnetic phenomena; so that I venture to say that any one who understands the provisional and temporary nature of this hypothesis, will find himself rather helped than hindered by it in his search after the true interpretation of the phenomena."

How would you see this in terms of the discussion? To me it seems that Maxwell obviously knew that electromagnetic and electrostatic fields were not actually microscopic cells and wheels, but he saw it as a means of representing a reality that he knew was completely different in nature to the model. There is implied a clear distinction between model and reality, and I can't help thinking that we could pretty much repeat Maxwell's quote in a more modern context say when (for example) talking about "travelling photons between a source and sink in vacuum)".