Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2007,23:17)|
| ... The way I think of it, we walk around with models of how the world works. The models have various objects in them, some of which we have direct evidence for, some we don't. My world includes basketballs, which I have direct evidence for, and japan, which I have indirect evidence for. I believe Fiji exists via some of this indirect evidence. (Were You There?!?!?!? No, I was never in Fiji. Shut up, HamTard. Grownups are talking.) It's part of my model for the world. So as far as my beliefs, which are aspects of my model of the world, you might call me a Fijiist. By contrast, I don't believe the Island of Gorgablax exists. I'm an agorgablaxist. It might, who knows, I haven't been everywhere in the world, but my model of the world doesn't include it. If you want me to make big life-changing decisions based on Gorgablax, I'm going to need to see some evidence that puts Gorgablax in my model. Do I know that Gorgablax doesn't exist? No. Am I going to act as if it does? No. Whether you call that agorgablaxism or Gorgablax agnosticism, the practical effect is the same. Gorgablax is not part of my model of the world.|
Amen to that!
Thanks for this excellent exposition of the model-oriented way of looking at the world. Or is it a way of looking at the way people look at the world? Anyway, I agree with you, and your comment is a keeper.
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box