Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
Luckily, we do indeed think in terms of models, with great efficacy, for language itself would be virtually meaningless otherwise.
|
There it is....efficacy. I liked it the first time you used it long ago. It kicks!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Len Moran
It is easy to fall prey to the notion that a model is a poor substitute for the actual when in fact, as you say, the model is the interface between our limited intelligence and the actual - hardly any kind of superficial notion then, in fact more of an essential survival mechanism.
|
Very nice. I like your use of "interfacing" since it implies a functional connect, which is not easily seen in most pedagogical pictoral view; pictures lack efficacy. [Did I mention I like this word?]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
The point of a model is to simplify, because we don't want the actual, we want something we can understand. That's the whole point of the exercise (which is why Occam's Razor is not a minor element of science, it is the core of science).
|
Yes. Using the Copernican model that was mentioned, at least in the 16th and 17th centuries, this model thrived on the use of Occam's Razor, contrary to what I used to understand of it. It was simple and elegant with the way it addressed retrograde and orbital periods. This "interface" was thought to have fewer wires, but later, more wires were needed to match the accuracy of Ptolemy's model because both were stuck on the circular orbit idea. [Too bad Galileo did not jump into Kepler's ellipses model. Perhaps, the additional distaste this brought against Aristotle outweighed the efficacy benefit.] Nevertheless, the Copernican model ran its wires in a very orderly and understandable way. Not until Newton's gravity model did the Copernican efficacy become realized.
Another very nice thread, folks.