Re: Modelling Considered Harmful

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 21:55:08 +0200
Message-ID: <427a7a1e$0$15658$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

dawn wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote:

>>dawn wrote:
>>>mAsterdam wrote:
>>>>Kenneth Downs wrote:

>>2. Language does more than just model thoughts.

>
> I can't actually think of any model that only models. When using a
> model, you get the benefits of using that particular model. So, it
> makes complete sense to me that you might claim of any model that it
> does more than model.
>
> <snip>
>

>>>While it is a good idea to model for a purpose, I don't think that
>>>is essential to the definition of the model.
>>
>>Ah! Here we diverge. I think as soon as the model steps out of
>>the scope of the art-students she stops being a model.

>
> This wasn't a "dig in my heels" opinion, but the reason I said that
> purpose was not critical to the definition is that there needs to be
> room for the model itself to exist because the process of modeling had
> a purpose, rather than the model itself having one. We could call that
> the purpose of the model, if you want to stretch it. But if we have
> students in a grade school diagram a sentence (I wish they still did
> that -- my kids didn't)

Neither did my daughter and (IMO because of just that) now she has some difficulty learning french and german :-(

> then we have a model of a sentence (which, with
> my earlier points would make it a meta model), then (are you trying to
> diagram THIS sentence!) and that model itself really has no purpose,
> but the process of modeling did have a purpose.
>
> On the other hand, if you want a statement about purpose in the
> definition of a model, I can live with that.

Hm... My feeling says: yes, without its purpose it is not a model. The term model more refers to the role of something than to the thing itself. Kenneth's definitions _without_ the purpose go against my intuition on this, but I admit am not sure about it.

>>>Instead one might write "we
>>>are using a model to ...".  If I'm working with Lincoln Logs (which
>>>might be differently named outside the US), my purpose might be
>>>"play" or even "beauty" or as a creative act.  The modeling need not 
>>>be for the purpose of studying something except perhaps in the very
>>>broadest terms.
>>
>>What then, makes it a model? BTW should I google for Lincoln Logs?

>
> I did and it would be better to go to amazon.com, select Toys & Games
> for the category and type in "Lincoln Logs" for the search. Have you
> ever seen a similar toy? (just curious) We have quite a collection of
> these in our basement.

Not quite. The pictures look nice, though.

>>>>>It should seem almost painfully obvious that the standard examples
>>>>>of employees, sales orders, inventory activity
>>>>>and so forth fit far more the definitions for "records"
>>>>>than they do for "model".
>>>
>>>They fit both because records, themselves, are modeling something.
>>
>>Not by themselves, IMO. The model lives outside the records.

>
> I still think they model propositions in a similar way to language
> modeling thoughts. There can also be an abstracted model that all such
> records use that does exist outside of any one such record.
>
> <snip>
>

>>This is, I think, the same difference as noted above.
>>Just records cannot make up a model. They may be part of a model,
>>but more is needed. Along the line of "characters are not language."

>
> I think of records as having meaning, of modeling propositions.

I do agree records have meaning - a punchcard out of its pile can't serve as a record anymore (again purpose/role as part of of the definition: what makes a record a record) - without meaning its just medium (paper) and tokens (the puncholes). These records though represent propositions, they don't (just) model them. A complete representation defeats the purpose of a model. Sorry for hammering the same nail over and over again.

<snip> Received on Thu May 05 2005 - 14:55:08 CDT