Timeline for What is the value of a formal model in science?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5, 2020 at 18:09 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | "I would expect an input to be good if it produces a good output (the WYPIIWYGO bit)" -- But how could you know if a scientific model produces uniformly "good output" without empirically testing it, especially testing the new predictions it makes that go beyond the original data that inspired someone to come up with the model? Some models may seem good based on what we already know, but they lead to new predictions that turn out to be false--in this case would you just say that in retrospect the model wasn't good? Even so, haven't we learned something new, and didn't the model play a role? | |
| Jan 1, 2020 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1212478698634514432 | ||
| Dec 31, 2019 at 21:04 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Dec 31, 2019 at 18:16 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 17:10 | answer | added | Ted Wrigley | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 16:29 | answer | added | user37981 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 15:24 | comment | added | Conifold | Your point is moot since the modeler does not know at the outset what the model does, and hence how "good" it is. She can not design it to do "good things" because a) they are only partially known, and b) even if they were, reverse engineering a suitable model from that is highly non-trivial. Hence the value of both investigating and testing models "from epistemological viewpoint", it produces new knowledge. | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 14:11 | comment | added | luchonacho | @Conifold I guess my point with WYPIIWYGO is that there is complete freedom for the modeler (we can create fake realities/universes in a model). This freedom is what enable a model to be anything. How "good" it will be in explaining something (the output) depends on how it is set up (the input). | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 14:08 | comment | added | luchonacho | @Hypnosifl Well, using "good" is not precise enough, as I would expect an input to be good if it produces a good output (the WYPIIWYGO bit). Yes, my question is about models being tautologies, and thus lacking value. A model is "good" only because it has good inputs. | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 13:57 | answer | added | Slup | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 13:57 | comment | added | Conifold | WYPIIWYGO is false, it is a version of logical omniscience, see What is the difference between depth and surface information?. We put in the axioms of arithmetic, but still do not know if odd perfect numbers exist, even arithmetic has "secrets". It is also false in a more direct sense. A model is a template which is not fully parametrized or even fully structured. Testable consequences are needed to stage measurements that determine parameter values and structures. This is particularly obvious in string theory with its multitude of options. | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 13:34 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | What do you mean by "Put good things, and you will get good things"? It's obviously possible to come up with models that look good at first but then lead to predictions that don't pan out, so if you are suggesting there is something circular or tautological about creating models and testing them, I don't understand what your argument for that would be. | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 13:00 | history | asked | luchonacho | CC BY-SA 4.0 |