But this is pure rhetoric. I already challenged you to back it up by making an actual meaningful distinction between these words. I haven't seen any attempt to meet that challenge, so I still view the words as completely empty. Will you cite evidence that scientists make better progress when they visualize their own behavior as a process of discovering what is already there, versus a process of creating a way of modeling what is there? When Galileo discovered with his telescope that lights went around Jupiter, was that fundamentally different from when he created in his head a model that Jupiter had moons orbiting it like our Moon orbits us? And are you not simply creating a model of the process of science yourself, when you claim that "discovery" is a better way to model what science does? Is this something you have discovered, or are you theorizing about it?

Indeed. And I'm sure Wittgenstein also realized that models are perfect examples of such "grammar". So Disinfo Agent mentioning "grammatical differences" is in no way inconsistent with his points about what models are-- it is just the point. How does your identifying that fact bolster your strange objection to the way Disinfo Agent is using the term "model"?

And I'll bet good money that the way you do that, in providing better programs, is by constructing a concept of a "model program" and trying to get your actual programs to approximate it to some degree. Or do you just write some random code and modify it until it works? I doubt it. We need only look at how scientific thinking functions to see the immediate and crucial importance of making models, even if you choose to call them "metaphors", as if that was anything different.

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.