Are all models wrong?

[A_Seagull]

Everyone has a different model of the world, albeit with some overlap.
There is no absolute or 'true' model of the world with which to compare one's model.
So the only way to objectively compare different models is with regard to their efficiency and accuracy.

[A_Seagull]

PS I have 'known' Lacewing for quite a long time and IMO her model of the world is quite different from that of Skepdick; ergo they are different people.

I would also suggest that using the use of capital letters as inferring that two posters are the same person is inefficient and ultimately inaccurate.

[Peter Holmes]

All out of thoughtful responses, atm.

Ah. So, you make some inaccurate rude assumption to blow me off, and then don't apologize or say anything further. NICE.

Skepdick has poisoned the well, and boasted about doing so. So I can't know who you really are. It's a shame, I know, but that's presumably how trolls get their kicks.

If you aren't Skepdick, my cussing wasn't and isn't directed at you. But if you are Skepdick - fuck off, you troll.

[Skepdick]

What is it about things that we can't, at least in principle, know? Do they have some ineffable essence or fundamental reality - a Kantian noumena - for ever beyond our understanding? (I think this is metaphysical nonsense - not that I'm suggesting you believe it.)

So I can't know who you really are.

Nothing like answering your own question, eh?

It's a shame, I know, but that's presumably how trolls get their kicks.

It's how scientists demonstrate things to Philosophers. Rather than waste time arguing with them.

If you aren't Skepdick, my cussing wasn't and isn't directed at you. But if you are Skepdick - fuck off, you troll.

What's the matter? Is your model about Lacewing's identity wrong or something?

Skepdick has poisoned the well, and boasted about doing so.

Your epistemic inadequacies are reality's doing - not mine.

Blaming me for your words/actions is rather juvenile.

[Skepdick]

I disagree. What and why seem perfectly obvious in the context he said it:

I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on. These are real things that I know.

It may well be "perfectly obvious" to you, but if it's "so obvious" why can't you paraphrase it?

paraphrase noun A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.

It is difficult to believe that you cannot work out the "intent/purpose/telos" from that.

...we use the word know and its cognates perfectly clearly in many different contexts, and that if required we can explain what we mean in different ways.

It's difficult to believe that you can work out the "intent/purpose/telos" given the lack of context in this particular case.

Alas, going down this path is not profitable. It's not your place to decide my level (or lack) of understanding.
You could believe me when I tell you that it would like you to paraphrase (and follow through).

Or you could refuse to and stand your ground.

Frankly, I think it is disingenuous to claim that "incomprehensible" is a synonym for "nothing to 'comprehend'." I suppose it is possible that you spend so much time on computer languages that you sometimes forget that most are very poor models for natural languages.

In what rigid view of the English language are the two not synonymous? Perhaps you are forgetting that while computer languages are rigid, natural languages are near-infinitely flexible?

"I find this sentence incomprehensible" and "There is nothing to comprehend about this sentence" expresses the same sentiment. I know it does because it is my intention to express the same sentiment while using different words. That's how paraphrasing is supposed to work.

You'll get over it. I used to be surprised by how fatuous some of your arguments are.

I got over it when I started placating him.

The entire game of arguing is fatuous. Which is why I am hinting at playing a cooperative, rather than an adversarial game.

You can't infer that from my thinking that knowing a person's grandmother's birthday (in general) is not necessary for knowing the person.

But in particular I can infer from the broader context (useful thing!) that knowing a birthday is not necessary for knowing a person.

You know your grandparents even though you don't know their birthdays.

I'm with Peter Holmes on this one: it depends on the context.

And yet you continue pretending that a sentence like "I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on." could be meaningful devoid of context!

Personally I wouldn't set the bar so low and I'm confident that Peter Holmes knows a bit more than just that about his wife.

Progress!

What you've managed to communicate (or what I've managed to interrogate out of you) so far is that:
* Knowing things about a person is necessary, but insufficient for knowing the person
* Knowing the person's birthday is not necessary for knowing the person
* Knowing the person's name is insufficient for knowing the person

What I am DOING is attempting to infer your general classification rules for "knowing a person" from particular instances of 'knowing a person" and "not knowing a person".

Epistemology 101 stuff - particularism and methodism.

Thankfully not.

Then lets push that envelope even further. Would you say that you know Karl Popper? (since you know way more about him than I know about you)

[Peter Holmes]

What is it about things that we can't, at least in principle, know? Do they have some ineffable essence or fundamental reality - a Kantian noumena - for ever beyond our understanding? (I think this is metaphysical nonsense - not that I'm suggesting you believe it.)

So I can't know who you really are.

Nothing like answering your own question, eh?

Keep up. We can use words like 'know' in different ways in different contexts. Are you just being childish, or do you really not understand?

[Skepdick]

Keep up. We can use words like 'know' in different ways in different contexts.

WE can do that (in theory), but YOU aren't doing that (in practice).

What YOU are doing (in practice) is using the word "know" in different ways within the same context.

I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on.

If use is meaning, then the word "know" has multiple meanings in the sentence above, because I am absolutely sure that the way you know your wife is not the way you know your guitars.

There is even a name for it. Equivocation

Are you just being childish, or do you really not understand?

10th time now. Can you give me an example of real-world use of the sentences that you are using as examples?

[uwot]

It's not your place to decide my level (or lack) of understanding.

Fair enough. So in the spirit of your hinted at "cooperative, rather than an adversarial game", I am quite certain that PH is familiar with a number of facts about his wife that by most standards, and certainly good enough for me, would make his saying 'I know my wife' perfectly coherent. Those facts, I suspect, would include knowing her birthday, some of her background and history, some of her likes and dislikes, interests, hobbies, work situation, some physical features; the sort of information that even a moderately successful relationship is dependent on. If none of the above or similar could be forthcoming, then, in my view the sentence 'I know my wife', would not be incomprehensible; it would simply be false. Mind you, if he talks to his wife as he talks to Lacewing, I don't see much future.

"I find this sentence incomprehensible" and "There is nothing to comprehend about this sentence" expresses the same sentiment. I know it does because it is my intention to express the same sentiment while using different words. That's how paraphrasing is supposed to work.

It's not your place to decide my level (or lack) of understanding, far less everybody else's.

And yet you continue pretending that a sentence like "I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on." could be meaningful devoid of context!

I don't have to know the context to be persuaded that PH could provide some, should I be so nosey.

Then lets push that envelope even further. Would you say that you know Karl Popper? (since you know way more about him than I know about you)

Never met the bloke.

[Peter Holmes]

Keep up. We can use words like 'know' in different ways in different contexts.

WE can do that (in theory), but YOU aren't doing that (in practice).

What YOU are doing (in practice) is using the word "know" in different ways within the same context.

I know my kitchen, clothes, wife and children, home town, colleagues, guitars, and so on and so on.

If use is meaning, then the word "know" has multiple meanings in the sentence above, because I am absolutely sure that the way you know your wife is not the way you know your guitars.

There is even a name for it. Equivocation

Are you just being childish, or do you really not understand?

10th time now. Can you give me an example of real-world use of the sentences that you are using as examples?

Perhaps you'd find another example easier to understand. Try this one.

I have a cold, a headache, a wife and a mortgage.

Now, do I have these things in one and the same way? Obviously not. Can I explain, if necessary - for some blinkered idiot - the different ways in which I have these things? Of course I can. And can most people who aren't idiots understand that in one sentence a word can be used, perhaps playfully, in different ways? Of course they can. And am I equivocating on the word 'have' in this sentence? Of course I am. And is that an equivocation fallacy? Of course it isn't, because I'm not using the equivocation in premises to justify an unsound conclusion.

Now, instead of shooting off another ill-thought-out post, have a good think about this and - never know - the penny may drop.

[Skepdick]

I have a cold, a headache, a wife and a mortgage.

Is there any particular reason why you didn't say "I have knowledge"?

Now, do I have these things in one and the same way? Obviously not. Can I explain, if necessary - for some blinkered idiot - the different ways in which I have these things? Of course I can. And can most people who aren't idiots understand that in one sentence a word can be used, perhaps playfully, in different ways? Of course they can. And am I equivocating on the word 'have' in this sentence? Of course I am. And is that an equivocation fallacy? Of course it isn't, because I'm not using the equivocation in premises to justify an unsound conclusion.

Surely then the penny may drop for you too if you recognize that your sentence "I know my kitchen, clothes, wife..." could just as well be stated as "I have knowledge about my kitchen, clothes, wife..."

And surely that's a short inference step away for you to recognise that "the knowledge you have about X", is what I call a "the model of X"?

And your model could be wrong for any of the following reasons:
* It's incomplete (you don't know your wife's grandparents' names)
* It's outdated (your wife used to like coffee, but she changed her mind last week and hasn't told you)
* It's outright wrong (you incorrectly inferred something based on incomplete info)

"Your knowledge of your wife/children/guitars is incomplete/stale/erroneous" means exactly the same thing as "Your model of your wife/children/guitars is wrong."

Now, instead of shooting off another ill-thought-out post, have a good think about this and - never know - the penny may drop.

Why don't you do that indeed? Instead of starting off another ill-thought-out thread where you dish out advice that you yourself don't follow.

You never know, you might just see that you actually agree with the statement "All models are wrong". If it weren't for language getting in the way.

[Lacewing]

PS I have 'known' Lacewing for quite a long time and IMO her model of the world is quite different from that of Skepdick; ergo they are different people.

I would also suggest that using the use of capital letters as inferring that two posters are the same person is inefficient and ultimately inaccurate.

Thank you, Seagull... indeed!

I can't know who you really are.

Other than using CAPS sometimes for emphasis, I would think that the difference between my writing style and content -- and that of Skepdick -- is perceptibly different! Not just in my responses to you, but in my responses throughout this forum.

I, too, do not understand Skepdick's obsession with you saying "I know my wife". I felt like I understood your intent and context.

How do we know that you and they are not the same poster play-arguing back and forth? The whole thing seems kind of absurd.

[Peter Holmes]

I have a cold, a headache, a wife and a mortgage.

Is there any particular reason why you didn't say "I have knowledge"?

Now, do I have these things in one and the same way? Obviously not. Can I explain, if necessary - for some blinkered idiot - the different ways in which I have these things? Of course I can. And can most people who aren't idiots understand that in one sentence a word can be used, perhaps playfully, in different ways? Of course they can. And am I equivocating on the word 'have' in this sentence? Of course I am. And is that an equivocation fallacy? Of course it isn't, because I'm not using the equivocation in premises to justify an unsound conclusion.

Surely then the penny may drop for you too if you recognize that your sentence "I know my kitchen, clothes, wife..." could just as well be stated as "I have knowledge about my kitchen, clothes, wife..."

And surely that's a short inference step away for you to recognise that "the knowledge you have about X", is what I call a "the model of X"?

And your model could be wrong for any of the following reasons:
* It's incomplete (you don't know your wife's grandparents' names)
* It's outdated (your wife used to like coffee, but she changed her mind last week and hasn't told you)
* It's outright wrong (you incorrectly inferred something based on incomplete info)

"Your knowledge of your wife/children/guitars is incomplete/stale/erroneous" means exactly the same thing as "Your model of your wife/children/guitars is wrong."

Now, instead of shooting off another ill-thought-out post, have a good think about this and - never know - the penny may drop.

Why don't you do that indeed? Instead of starting off another ill-thought-out thread where you dish out advice that you yourself don't follow.

You never know, you might just see that you actually agree with the statement "All models are wrong". If it weren't for language getting in the way.

WOT

[Skepdick]

WOT

Surely responding with "WOT" to posts that are a "Waste Of Time" is a waste of time? So the question of intent/telos/purpose still perplexes me!

Why are you doing it then?

[Skepdick]

Fair enough. So in the spirit of your hinted at "cooperative, rather than an adversarial game", I am quite certain that PH is familiar with a number of facts about his wife that by most standards, and certainly good enough for me, would make his saying 'I know my wife' perfectly coherent.

I am sufficiently certain (to say it) that the statement is perfectly coherent to Peter. That's why he's saying it.

Also, I am sufficiently doubtful (to say it) that the statement can't possibly be coherent to you, given that you are in a vacuum as to any particulars of Peter's knowledge or his wife.

You are in the exact same vacuum that I am in. If I don't have any particulars - neither do you, so whatever it is that you call 'understanding' of Peter's position seems rather superficial.

Those facts, I suspect, would include knowing her birthday, some of her background and history, some of her likes and dislikes, interests, hobbies, work situation, some physical features; the sort of information that even a moderately successful relationship is dependent on.

This is common sense - you aren't saying anything that needs saying.

So back to my original question: WHY are you saying things that needn't be said ?!?

If none of the above or similar could be forthcoming, then, in my view the sentence 'I know my wife', would not be incomprehensible; it would simply be false. Mind you, if he talks to his wife as he talks to Lacewing, I don't see much future.

The sentence "I know my wife" is not objectionable, but it's not informative either.

The statement mentions knowledge, but does not communicate any of it.

It's not your place to decide my level (or lack) of understanding, far less everybody else's.

I know that. Which is why I am not deciding/judging your (or anybody's) level of understanding.

Everything that I said is a description of my own, personal state of mind. I am stating the intent behind my words. I am not prescribing how you SHOULD interpret my words. I am merely stating that if you are interpreting my meaning differently to how I intend it to be understood, then you are probably making an interpretative error.

You are mis-understanding me.
I am using language that you don't understand.
We are mis-communicating.

Three different ways to describe the same event. Use it as a red flag. Or don't.

Naturally, it's not for me to decide whether you want to mis-understand me or not, but it is for me to provide you with any additional context that (given my own understanding of me and my quirks) might minimise the risk of you mis-understanding me.

I don't have to know the context to be persuaded that PH could provide some, should I be so nosey.

But without context there is nothing to be "persuaded" about!

Peter says he know his wife. I am neither skeptical about this claim, nor convinced of it - it's just what he says.

My attitude towards that sentence is "Whatever!". My judgment is suspended until the sentence is contextualised; or until Peter says something I strongly object to.

Never met the bloke.

I reasonably guessed that, which is why I didn't ask you whether you've met Karl Popper or not. I asked you whether you know him or not.

I was hoping that the question would receive a yes/no answer.

[Peter Holmes]

WOT

Surely responding with "WOT" to posts that are a "Waste Of Time" is a waste of time? So the question of intent/telos/purpose still perplexes me!

Why are you doing it then?

I wouldn't want it thought that I don't read posts that address what I've said.