Quoting Steve Smith circa 09-11-25 01:50 PM: > It is even less surprising > that those whose rhetoric is in opposition to that rhetoric would attempt to > justify their *own* rhetoric based on this failure on the part of the > individuals/institutions in question to be entirely unbiased in every way.
First, I have to say that I actually laughed out loud at that one. Thanks. > glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> >> "Model" is a much abused word. Models (and simulations) are a sub-type >> of rhetoric. > > I would counter that models are often *expressed* in rhetoric, not sub-types > of > rhetoric. > > Just as models are sometimes *implemented* in simulations rather than > simulations being types of models. > > Can you give us more justification for subsuming modeling into rhetoric? Let's look at some examples of what a model can be. A model can be 1) a stick upon which many regular marks are made is a model of length or extent, the referent can be the real line or another object with extent, 2) a crystal or coiled spring (once wound up) that steadily ticks away is a model of time, 3) a human/manikin dressed in clothes intended to be worn by another human is a model of that other human, 4) a schematic where various relations between markings (symbols) on the vellum model those relations between corresponding objects (the symbols' referents) elsewhere, 5) a blueprint (a schematic that attempts to describe _all_ the salient relations), including textual specifications for non-spatial relations, is a model for some as yet unconstructed thing, 6) a language and a collection of axioms and theorems is a model for any process that starts with initial and ends with final conditions. Now, all these examples have an existence of their own, outside any _modeling_ context. For example, (1) is just a stick that you can poke someone's eye out with or burn for heat. You can make a paper airplane out of (5) and fly it across the room, etc. Examples of (6) are currently driving the heater for my office. ;-) When they're not being USED to model something else, they are just whatever they are. In order for them to be models, they must be _used_ to express something. Usually, they are used to make a persuasive argument for or against something. For example, I may use (1) to show you that my computer is wider than yours. Or I may use (4) to show you that some crazy idea I have about the Higgs boson isn't all that crazy. In other words, a model isn't a model until it is _used_ rhetorically. Now, you might say that these models are used non-rhetorically when, say, a furniture maker constructs a chair or somesuch. But, I would counter that the furniture maker is engaged in a never-ending dialogue with herself _while_ they're making the chair. The dialogue consists of a kind of primitive rhetoric where the brain persuades the fingers and the fingers persuade the brain, or one part of the brain persuades another, etc. Most especially, however, the chair designer persuades the chair maker via models like rulers and schematics. And that's true even if the designer and the maker are the same person separated by time. All models are always rhetorical devices. An object can be a rhetorical device without being a model (like when I use a yard stick to slap you for not paying attention to my rhetoric). > Can one write a simulation without a > model? Yes. Simulations can come into being in all sorts of ways, including randomly. However, a simulation isn't a simulation unless it's also a model. You can't mimic something unless ... well, unless you're mimicking something. > In my lexicon, a model is presumed to have a referent but there are many, > many, > many unvalidated models in the world (perhaps you call these theories, > hypotheses, etc.) whose referent's qualities and perhaps even existence is > still > in question. I do not know what a theory or even hypothesis is, if not a > model. Perhaps without "proof" or "validation" it is a proto-model? Right. There is no such thing as an unvalidated model. If you can't validate, then you're just speculating (or theorizing). Now, validation can be achieved in a _huge_ number of ways, including qualitatively. So, you have to think carefully before you claim a body of rhetoric is NOT a model. The main method for determining this is asking the question: "What could I measure with that rhetoric?" If you can't measure anything with it, then it's not a model. A model can be a theory or a thesis because a model can contain theorems and sentences. (And the way we use the term "hypothesis" in science, a model can also be a hypothesis... In fact, the way both words model and hypothesis are used in science, all models are hypotheses because some parts of every model are _always_ unjustified.) But not all theories or theses are models (though the pretense is that scientific theories and theses _are_ all models... otherwise they aren't "scientific"). > For the most part, those who fund modeling (and simulation) are seeking to > justify their own rhetoric, not inform it. I've been lucky to a certain extent because I've been able to turn down projects where the client seems like they want only rhetoric and no models. So, in most cases, I make it clear to my clients that there's no (ethical) point in building the rhetoric unless you have data with which to falsify the model. I don't make that much money, though. And I don't have many clients. [sigh] I like to think I could have made much more money and landed many more clients had I been willing to generate non-model rhetoric. > My own rhetoric (used mostly in the privacy of my own head) is that I > knowingly > model in support of other's rhetoric to obtain the funds to allow me to do my > own model development in the pursuit of a higher truth. It's perfectly reasonable to build models that support a client's rhetoric as long as the client is willing to change their rhetoric when all the models built in support of the old rhetoric are falsified. The goal of modeling is to _reify_ the rhetoric... to make it real enough so that it can be used to measure reality. Usually, during the process, what actually happens is that reality is used to measure the model. Then the model (and the rhetoric) is changed so that it matches up with reality. At that point, you have a good enough basis flip it around and start using the model to measure reality. > My model of "a higher > truth" includes objective reality and does not admit to supernatural beings > or > forces. It has been proven to my satisfaction that I cannot validate this > model. e.g. I cannot prove that there is an objective reality. Therefore > *all* of my models are ultimately grounded in a model which I cannot prove a > valid referent. That only slows me down when I'm in a particularly > philosophical mood. The rest of the time I proceed blithely. I'm in complete agreement, here. If this post weren't already too long, though, I'd pick at the one nit you left. Your models _are_ grounded in a model you can prove. You just don't take the time to use that model (i.e. sensory motor processes in your fingers, ears, eyes, etc.). Instead you use an abstraction of that model that shunts out all that nitty gritty detail. Hm. I guess I picked at the nit anyway. Sorry. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
