Re: ontological levels

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Roberto,

I suppose I'd say that I tend to prefer a focus not so much on the models
per se, but on the modeling relation between the models and the objects.
Otherwise, I think we are generally in agreement. :)

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Roberto
> Poli
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:03 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: ontological levels
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Knowing that you defend a "moderate" form of subjectivism, I may subscribe
> almost all of what you have said. Our difference is more a
> problem of stress
> than of substance: I prefer to maintain in the focus of (my) attention the
> fact that our models are models of something (the objectual side, so to
> say). You prefer to focus your attention on the side of the model
> (the subjective
> side). No problem.
>
> Let me only add a couple of remarks. Ask yourself why models may change.
> To cut short a long story, two main reasons can be found: (1) a model may
> change for internal reasons (i.e., because we invent new
> algorithms or find
> more efficient ways of dealing with some kind of information); (2) a model
> may change for external reasons (because we would like or need to include
> more data/information (new "meters") into our models. This latter move is
> meaningful only if the new data (the new meter) makes some difference (in
> the Rosennean jargon: if it introduces some difference into an equivalence
> class). What does it mean? I take it as claiming that the new meter makes
> more detailed our knowledge of the "object" (we know more of our target).
> If the target depends on our decisions only, how can we arrive at knowing
> more of it?
>
> A different (and begging the question) answer is: there is no need to look
> at the object. You may simply take your equivalence classes,
> partition them
> in all the possible ways, and calculate all the possible answers. Nothing
> wrong if not for the simple fact that this latter strategy cannot
> work (for
> reasons of complexity -- in the traditional formal sense; RR would have
> said, for reasons of complication).
>
> Put it paradoxically: The objectual side is needed in order to simplify
> and give order to our modelling capacities.
>
> The objectual side is needed for making our models models of something.
> The internal machinery alone is not enough. The strategy based on
> subjectivity
> does not require anything more than internal (formal) machinery.
>
> One more observation is needed. Our (scientific) models should respect a
> basic constraint: the results arising from model-based inferences should
> concord with the results arising from objective causes.
>
> We may keep under control our inference engines. It seems much
> more difficult
> to legiferate on the nets of real causes. They resist our efforts and more
> than once they make us fool (this is why we call them objective :-).
>
> This said, it is obvious that the greatest part of any scientist's work
> deals with models. But here and there they have to check whether the model
> went astray (i.e. whether the inferences internal to the model (say, the
> laboratorium) are or are not in agreement with what is happening in the
> real world).
>
> cheers, r