Are all models wrong?

[Skepdick]

But you are not in a vacuum because you have a frame of reference which you can use
As you have a girlfriend and so you know her in the same sense that he knows his wife

Except I can't imagine a conversation, a question or a context in which one might actually use the sentence "I know my wife".

Perhaps....

surreptitious57: I bought your wife chocolates.
Skepdick: She won't like that.
surreptitious57: Why do you say that?
Skepdick: I know my wife.
surreptitious57: What do you mean?
Skepdick: She hates chocolate

But genuinely. That's the only example I could actually come up with after musing for 5 minutes. Which is precisely why I am asking... how would YOU use the sentence "I know my wife" in a conversation? In what context might you ever need to utter it and why? It's such a trivial statement, to use it as an example of any sort seems completely contrived.

But all of that doesn't go against "All models are wrong". Some of the things I know about my wife are wrong. Like for example - I thought I knew her shoe size when I bought her the (wrong) shoes.

If I had a perfect knowledge of my wife she'd never get pissed off with me, because I will ALWAYS know exactly what she's thinking, what she's feeling and what she needs from me. The fact that I get it wrong on occasion is evidence that I don't know my wife as well as I should.

My knowledge of my wife is just a model of my wife. In absolute terms - it's wrong. In relative terms - it's less wrong now than it was 5 years ago.

I keep updating/correcting/improving my model as I learn new things about her.

[Peter Holmes]

And that's how it devolves into sophistry. My intention is to understand you better by communicating more freely and effectively.

All I am asking you to do is to put the general principle you subscribe to into practice.


I am asking you to "explain what you mean in different ways". Surely you understand this request? It's formulated in your own language.

I am literally helping you help me understand you by asking for an example of how you might use the sentence "I know my wife" in a conversation.

You seem unwilling to do that. Perhaps because you've been programmed to conduct philosophy as if it were a standoff?

Personally, I think cooperation is better. Godspeed.

I'm sorry, but unless you explain what you mean when you say you have no idea what I meant when I said 'I know my wife' - that the context in which I said it - to demonstrate examples of how we use the word 'know' - made no sense to you, so that you had no way to understand my intention in that context - then I simply don't understand what your intention is when you ask your question.

We can keep playing this stupid game - you can keep affecting incomprehension of standard English words used in a standard way in a perfectly understandable context. Or, better still, let's not bother. Or, even better, why don't you set out your argument as clearly and concisely as you can in an OP, so that we can all understand and assess it? Never know, it could sort us all out.

Then stop playing the stupid game and answer the question.

How would you use the sentence "I know my wife" in a conversation?

I am telling you that I don't comprehend your meaning, because I actually don't comprehend your meaning. If you don't care to course-correct to my feedback... carry on.

And I'm telling you that when you say you don't know what I mean when I say 'I know my wife' - that you can't imagine a context in which such an assertion would make sense - I don't understand what you mean, because the words make perfect sense to me, for example as a demonstration of how we can use the word 'know'.

Pending your explanation of your position - what you're arguing for - perhaps you can help us all out by giving an example of a use of the word 'know' that you do understand, together with your explanation of what the word means to you in that context. Maybe then we can see if your problem is any more than an affectation.

[Skepdick]

And I'm telling you that when you say you don't know what I mean when I say 'I know my wife' - that you can't imagine a context in which such an assertion would make sense - I don't understand what you mean, because the words make perfect sense to me, for example as a demonstration of how we can use the word 'know'.

I heard and understood you when you said that you don't understand me.

Which is PRECISELY why I am responding back with a question: Could you please demonstrate how you might use the sentence in a conversation?

If you answer this question for me it will help move the conversation along. This is me helping you help me understand you.

You can either comply with my request, or fight me. Cooperation or adversity.

Your choice.

Pending your explanation of your position.

How do you propose I explain my position to you when you don't want to engage in a cooperative, interactive game? e.g a conversation.
Should I just throw words at you and hope to get lucky?

You have absolutely no idea how the give-and-take of real-world communication works.

Dumb Philosopher.

I think I am going to refuse to mud-wrestle for a while - see how that works out...

Maybe then we can see if your problem is any more than an affectation.

OK. It's an affectation. You are right. I am wrong. I agree with you.

But I still have no idea what you are saying.

[surreptitious57]

My knowledge of my wife is just a model of my wife

It is better to say knowledge of your wife is incomplete rather than it is a model for it is the wrong terminology
And this is because models are hypothetical representations of observable phenomena and not of human beings
Now you might say that human beings are observable phenomena but this is not what the term actually refers to

[Skepdick]

It is better to say knowledge of your wife is incomplete, rather than it is a model for it is the wrong terminology

Models are incomplete - by definition.

It's not the "wrong" terminology - it's a short-hand word used as a place-holder for the mouthful phrase.

And this is because models are hypothetical representations of observable phenomena and of not human beings

Unnecessary distinction.

Now you might say that human beings are observable phenomena but this is not what the term actually refers to

It's exactly what it refers to in science. If model describe phenomena, and human beings are phenomena then models describe human beings.

[surreptitious57]

If model describe phenomena and human beings are phenomena then models describe human beings

I use phenomena to mean physical forces or objects rather than biological organisms
I am using the word in the same way that physicists use it for that is how I use it too

[Skepdick]

I use phenomena to mean physical forces or objects rather than biological organisms

I am using the word in the same way that physicists use it for that is how I use it too

That distinction may be useful in a particular conversation, but in general it's not necessary. Everything in the unverse is physics.

In fact, if the measurement problem is to be resolved that distinction is going to have to be discarded.

The "biological organism" we call "the observer" is a quantum system.

[Peter Holmes]

And I'm telling you that when you say you don't know what I mean when I say 'I know my wife' - that you can't imagine a context in which such an assertion would make sense - I don't understand what you mean, because the words make perfect sense to me, for example as a demonstration of how we can use the word 'know'.

I heard and understood you when you said that you don't understand me.

Which is PRECISELY why I am responding back with a question: Could you please demonstrate how you might use the sentence in a conversation?

If you answer this question for me it will help move the conversation along. This is me helping you help me understand you.

You can either comply with my request, or fight me. Cooperation or adversity.

Your choice.

Pending your explanation of your position.

How do you propose I explain my position to you when you don't want to engage in a cooperative, interactive game? e.g a conversation.
Should I just throw words at you and hope to get lucky?

You have absolutely no idea how the give-and-take of real-world communication works.

Dumb Philosopher.

I think I am going to refuse to mud-wrestle for a while - see how that works out...

Maybe then we can see if your problem is any more than an affectation.

OK. It's an affectation. You are right. I am wrong. I agree with you.

But I still have no idea what you are saying.

Good. So you agree your failure to understand me is an affectation. And you maintain that you don't understand me. And you're comfortable with this flat contradiction. But I'm not. And I think pursuing this conversation is a waste of time.

Yours sincerely

Dumb Philosopher

[Skepdick]

Good. So you agree your failure to understand me is an affectation. And you maintain that you don't understand me.

Even sarcasm goes over your head.

I didn't actually mean it in the way you understood it. My intent was to placate you.

I said it because it seemed like "I agree with you" is the sentence you want to hear from me, or anybody who engages you. For you certainly aren't interested in answering any questions.

And you're comfortable with this flat contradiction. But I'm not.

You are making your mal-adaptation other people's problem.

And I think pursuing this conversation is a waste of time.

From my side it feels a monologue.

If it was a conversation you might actually answer my questions...

[Peter Holmes]

Good. So you agree your failure to understand me is an affectation. And you maintain that you don't understand me. And you're comfortable with this flat contradiction. But I'm not.

Even sarcasm goes over your head.

I didn't actually mean it in the way you understood it. My intent was to placate you.

I said it because it seemed like "I agree with you" is the sentence you want to hear from me.

And I think pursuing this conversation is a waste of time.

From my side it feels a monologue.

Why try to placate a dumb philosopher? And, fyi, I don't give a flying fuck if an offensive, pretentious jerk like you agrees with me or not.

[Skepdick]

Why try to placate a dumb philosopher?

Being civil wasn't fruitful - I might as well amuse myself.

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results --A.Einstein

I don't give a flying fuck if an offensive, pretentious jerk like you agrees with me or not.

Peter, would you like a mirror?

The pretentious game you are playing is called Philosophy.
You seem to think philosophy is an adversarial game. That makes you a jerk.

I'll manage you like one.

[Peter Holmes]

Why try to placate a dumb philosopher?

Being civil wasn't fruitful - I might as well amuse myself.

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results --A.Einstein

I don't give a flying fuck if an offensive, pretentious jerk like you agrees with me or not.

Peter, would you like a mirror?

The pretentious game you are playing is called Philosophy.
You seem to think philosophy is an adversarial game. That makes you a jerk.

I'll manage you like one.

WOT

[Skepdick]

WOT

WOT is confusing you?

Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.

You are the first one.

So for as long as you keep dodging the simple question "Can you give me an example of how you use that sentence in a real conversation?" I am going to treat you like an idiot.

[Peter Holmes]

WOT

WOT is confusing you?

Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.

You are the first one.

So for as long as you keep dodging the simple question "Can you give me an example of how you use that sentence in a real conversation?" I am going to treat you like an idiot.

WOT

[Skepdick]

WOT

WOT is confusing you?

Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.

You are the first one.

So for as long as you keep dodging the simple question "Can you give me an example of how you use that sentence in a real conversation?" I am going to treat you like an idiot.

WOT

Only question that remains then: how charitable is charitable enough?

Naaah. I am the sucker in this game... There is no way you are this stupid.

Go fuck yourself.