Re: Modelling Considered Harmful
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 14:30:50 +0200
Message-ID: <427a11f9$0$151$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Kenneth Downs wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote: >
>>Kenneth Downs wrote:
>>
>>>I wonder if anybody would care to dispute the thesis that use of the term
>>>"modelling" with regard to databases does more harm than good.
>>
>>Yes, it is a good excercise. I allready commented in some
>>sub-threads, but you dismissed my remarks. I think there is more to
>>this, so I chose to reply to the OP this time.
>>
>>Let's dissect :-)
>>
>>>The case can also be stated that databases are NOT models of reality.
>>
>>They are not, agreed.
>>
>>>They are rather record-keeping systems.
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>>If it can be shown that databases are
>>>record-keeping, that record-keeping is not modelling, then it stands that
>>>we would not call databases models.
>>
>>So far, so good.
>>
>>>We need to define models and records.
>>
>>Do we really?
> > ^^^^^^^^^ > > <sigh> End of conversation. I am not a post-modern. I am one of those > weirdos who thinks that there is an objective truth, that words point to > it, and that our clumsy attempts to tie definitions to experience are > worthwhile and well worth respecting. Further, using the definitions found > in recognized authorities prevents a descent into masturbatory chaos.
Providing definitions for crucial terms is one way of clarification. There are other ways, definitions aren't always possible or, when they are, beneficial - let alone necessary. Wether they are in this discussion doensnt matter: I accepted most of your definitons (notable exception: the lack of purpose) - but you deleted that part.
Words may or may not point to the truth - no garantuee, there. The one truth fairytale becomes a nightmare, a religion or both when one mistakes ones own truth for that one truth. I can see that the concept of models (leading to differing, even contradictory views of just a few aspects of reality) doesn't fit too well with one truth - or should I say one model?
>>Language is as language does. Language is not a
>>record-keeper (database), nor is it a model. But, if you insist ...
>>my take is definitons may or may not be helpful in judging wether
>>the term "modelling" is harmful or not, but I'm willing to come along.
> > If a definition is of no use, we may as well be writing articles for > Harpers.
So Harpers is a bad thing for us? I'll accept that. I won't google for it or ask you to define it. I'll just assume that it is a medium for lousy articles. If and and when I lose the rethoric line because I don't know what Harpers is, I'll check it. Definitions are quite useful at times but this isn't one of them. Received on Thu May 05 2005 - 14:30:50 CEST