Re: Question, version 2, building models

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Dan,
See interposed.
Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> Fiscus
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 9:31 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Question, version 2, building models
>
>
> Tim,
>
> But isn't modeling also ontic in that the modeler and all
> processes involved do exist in reference to, integrated with
> some material/physical processes (brain, mind, body, life
> needs, paper, pencils, speech, books, etc. etc.)?


Well, I agree that modelling has both ontological, as well as
epistemological, aspects. But this would not thereby make epistemological
models or claims thereby also be ontological entities or claims.


> This is the
> inescapable ontic and self-referential aspect to modeling
> that to me shows the epistemic cut to be artificial and
> majorly problematic if left to operate alone, unchecked,
> unbalanced.


I would hesitate to call it "artificial"; I would want to say that it is an
inherent and unavoidable by-product of modelling or attempts at
understanding the world. To me, "artificial" implies that it is something
that can be removed or circumvented; but I do not think that is possible.


> But looking at Rosen in context (all his works) I would
> agree that the quotes relate to different meanings and
> philosophies at the core.
>
> Dan
>