Re: Operational Closure

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Howard,

HP:
> What I?m getting at is that there are innumerable purposes for
> making models. My question is: Can anyone question a modeler?s
> purposes or perspective on other than ethical grounds?


Like JohnM, I'm not quite sure exactly what "ethical" means here. But if I
take a general notion of it, then I suppose I'd agree with you -- people can
model for whatever purposes they'd like, whether they are art models,
mathematical models, or so on. Whether the purposes and/or the models are
interesting or compelling to anyone else besides the original modeler is
another matter altogether.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> Pattee
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 4:20 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Operational Closure
>
>
> Judith and Tim,
>
> I think we have substantial agreement. Tim is uneasy about the
> word ?important? and Judith says these choices are all very
> subjective, and I agree. But we still have to choose observables.
> I am trying to think how we make this choice. To make this choice
> rationally, don?t we first have to establish the purpose of our
> model? Judith might call this the ?perspective? of the modeler.
> That is, we have to be specific about what we want the model to
> do or to tell us. (This may be difficult, as Judith explains in
> the case of her child.) Doesn?t this give us a more objective
> test of whether our observables are in fact the ?important?
> observables? I agree this is just pushing the subjectivity back a
> notch to the purpose or perspective of the modeler.
>
> What I?m getting at is that there are innumerable purposes for
> making models. My question is: Can anyone question a modeler?s
> purposes or perspective on other than ethical grounds?
>
> Howard