Are all models wrong?

[Skepdick]

1 If there were no context for the expression 'I know my wife', then it couldn't be contrived. Falling over backwards to maintain your ridiculous line of argument, you're dribbling drivel. But, of course, there is a context for the expression.

Peter, I have absolutely no idea in what language I need to say this so you can understand.

I don't have a "line of argument" because I am not actually arguing with you. You are 'arguing' and you are projecting that onto me.

What you see as an argument - I see as a bunch of blokes talking.

I am trying to communicate/understand what you are saying - and most importantly (to me) WHY you are saying it, and so when I tell you that the expression doesn't make sense to me, it's because IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

For the reasons that I am giving you.
And if you want to help me understand, I am also telling you HOW to help me - I am telling you where my uncertainty lies so that you can address it.

What more do you want?

Quite frankly, the longer you keep arguing (pages and pages) rather than answering a simple fucking question - the more I think you are a complete and utter idiot. As in out of character.

2 I was showing examples of the ways we can use the word 'know', and 'I know my wife' was one of them. 'I know my hometown' was another one. Why didn't you challenge the context or register-appropriate nature of that locution? If, as you claim, I was acting the Philosopher, then why was that use of the word 'know' uncontroversial? Or do you intend to fabricate some absurd argument about the context-less meaninglessness of 'I know my hometown'?

Peter - I have stated my intentions. Something you are continually refusing to do. My intent is to understand your meaning (because it's not clear to me).

The 'examples' you provided are contrived because they were not contextualised! They serve your argument, but they are a poor demonstration of your point.

3 Your appeal to linguistic 'register' is so much flammery. As you well know, in linguistics things are rarely clear-cut, so 'philosophy-speak' is not always and everywhere different from 'everyday-speak'. There's blurring and overlapping everywhere.

I was trying to explain (in a language that I thought my make sense to you) WHY I am saying the things I am saying. The language overlapping is neither here nor there, but your protocol for clarifying your meaning is completely ineffective!

If you think I am lying to you about WHY I don't understand you - there is no hope for us to get anywhere.

The 'example' you provides is NOT 'every day speak'. That is WHY I asked you to give me an example of an every-day context/conversation in which you might utter the same sentences which you used as an example.

Wtf are you on about? Google has nothing to say about 'I know my wife' - so the expression doesn't exist? Are you serious? Or for real?

Peter, quit straw-manning me. The expression does exist - you said it - it's there for everyone to see! NOBODY USES IT.

So your claim of 'the way WE use language' falls flat on its face because nobody uses that phrase that way.

What you were demonstrating is the way YOU use language. Which is WHY I am being overly cautious in assuming your meaning. I would prefer it if you clarified.

But if you are willing to leave my understanding of your words to chance - so be it! I am not going to fight you about it.

What actual evidence do you have for the claim that no one has ever said or would ever say 'I know my wife'? In all our long and tedious arguments, this is possibly the most fantastically stupid thing you've ever said.

Are you fucking serious?

The evidence is the absence of evidence of ANYBODY HAVING ACTUALLY USED IT.

You are doing your lame "shifting the burden of proof" routine again. If you are claiming that "people use language this way" it's not on me to offer evidence that they don't. Nobody can prove a negative.

Now I am sure that somebody, somewhere, somewhen may have uttered that phrase, in some particualr context but that context is not privy to me.

[Peter Holmes]

1 If there were no context for the expression 'I know my wife', then it couldn't be contrived. Falling over backwards to maintain your ridiculous line of argument, you're dribbling drivel. But, of course, there is a context for the expression.

Peter, I have absolutely no idea in what language I need to say this so you can understand.

I don't have a "line of argument" because I am not actually arguing with you. You are 'arguing' and you are projecting that onto me.

What you see as an argument - I see as a bunch of blokes talking.

I am trying to communicate/understand what you are saying - and most importantly (to me) WHY you are saying it, and so when I tell you that the expression doesn't make sense to me, it's because IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

For the reasons that I am giving you.
And if you want to help me understand, I am also telling you HOW to help me - I am telling you where my uncertainty lies so that you can address it.

What more do you want?

Quite frankly, the longer you keep arguing (pages and pages) rather than answering a simple fucking question - the more I think you are a complete and utter idiot. As in out of character.

2 I was showing examples of the ways we can use the word 'know', and 'I know my wife' was one of them. 'I know my hometown' was another one. Why didn't you challenge the context or register-appropriate nature of that locution? If, as you claim, I was acting the Philosopher, then why was that use of the word 'know' uncontroversial? Or do you intend to fabricate some absurd argument about the context-less meaninglessness of 'I know my hometown'?

Peter - I have stated my intentions. Something you are continually refusing to do. My intent is to understand your meaning (because it's not clear to me).

The 'examples' you provided are contrived because they were not contextualised! They serve your argument, but they are a poor demonstration of your point.

3 Your appeal to linguistic 'register' is so much flammery. As you well know, in linguistics things are rarely clear-cut, so 'philosophy-speak' is not always and everywhere different from 'everyday-speak'. There's blurring and overlapping everywhere.

I was trying to explain (in a language that I thought my make sense to you) WHY I am saying the things I am saying. The language overlapping is neither here nor there, but your protocol for clarifying your meaning is completely ineffective!

If you think I am lying to you about WHY I don't understand you - there is no hope for us to get anywhere.

The 'example' you provides is NOT 'every day speak'. That is WHY I asked you to give me an example of an every-day context/conversation in which you might utter the same sentences which you uttered as examples.

Wtf are you on about? Google has nothing to say about 'I know my wife' - so the expression doesn't exist? Are you serious? Or for real?

Peter, quit straw-manning me. The expression does exist. NOBODY USES IT.

So your claim of 'the way WE use language' falls flat on its face because nobody uses that phrase that way.

What you were demonstrating is the way YOU use language. Which is WHY I am being overly cautious in assuming your meaning. I would prefer it if you clarified. So THAT I don't mid-understand you.

But if you are willing to leave my understanding of your words to chance - so be it! I am not going to fight you about it.

What actual evidence do you have for the claim that no one has ever said or would ever say 'I know my wife'? In all our long and tedious arguments, this is possibly the most fantastically stupid thing you've ever said.

Because I cannot find ANY EXAMPLE of anybody USING IT on ALL OF THE INTERNET.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence!

Now I am sure that somebody, somewhere, somewhen may have uttered that phrase, in some particualr context but that context is not privy to me.

I don't understand what it is that you don't understand. So our conversation is going and can go nowhere. I shall, of course, follow your discussion with others, if only for the entertainment.

[Skepdick]

I don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

Towards the goal of helping me understand it is not necessary for you to understand what I don't understand.
Towards the goal of helping me understand it is sufficient that you to simply demonstrate how you might use your example in a less-contrived context.

So our conversation is going and can go nowhere.

This is not true.

The conversation is going nowhere because you are ignoring my request for additional information.
The conversation can move forward just fine if you fulfil my request for additional information.

The choice is yours.

I shall, of course, follow your discussion with others, if only for the entertainment.

Or.... you could actually use the sentence/phrase in another context.

You know. Just a suggestion.

(But I am getting the feeling that it's not your intention to have dialogue, you are actually looking for an argument)

All in all, accusing you of obscurantism is perfectly justifiable at this point. Or perhaps I can be more charitable... and simply accuse you of intentional contrarianism.

[Peter Holmes]

I don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

Towards the goal of helping me understand it is not necessary for you to understand what I don't understand.
Towards the goal of helping me understand it is sufficient that you to simply demonstrate how you might use your example in a less-contrived context.

So our conversation is going and can go nowhere.

This is not true.

The conversation is going nowhere because you are ignoring my request for additional information.
The conversation can move forward just fine if you fulfil my request for additional information.

The choice is yours.

I shall, of course, follow your discussion with others, if only for the entertainment.

Or.... you could actually use the sentence/phrase in another context.

You know. Just a suggestion.

(But I am getting the feeling that it's not your intention to have dialogue, you are actually looking for an argument)

All in all, accusing you of obscurantism is perfectly justifiable at this point. Or perhaps I can be more charitable... and simply accuse you of intentional contrarianism.

Accuse me of whatever you like, if it makes you feel better. I don't want to waste any more time and effort on this discussion.

[Skepdick]

Accuse me of whatever you like, if it makes you feel better. I don't want to waste any more time and effort on this discussion.

If you were a rational human being you would've actually addressed my request.

It would've taken you 60 seconds or less to furnish the example I asked you for.
You've wasted at least 15 minutes (over 12 days) posturing/arguing why you doing so would be a "waste of your time"

Only a Philosopher can be this stupid.

[uwot]

Only a Philosopher can be this stupid.

In fairness, some philosophers have said really stupid things, but l can't think of one that would claim the phrase 'I know my wife' is incomprehensible.

[Skepdick]

Only a Philosopher can be this stupid.

In fairness, some philosophers have said really stupid things, but l can't think of one that would claim the phrase 'I know my wife' is incomprehensible.

If you didn't know Peter had a wife, the statement transmitted exactly 1 bit of information from Peter to yourself.

You are now capable of answering the yes/no question: "Does Peter have a wife?"
You may have hallucinated a bunch of information, but that's no thanks to Peter.

Provided you already knew Peter had a wife, the statement transmits exactly 0 bits of information - it's incomprehensible.

Peter knows his wife.
You know your wife.
I know my wife.
Every husband knows their wife.
Every wife knows her husband.

Empty words. If it pleases you more - it's uninformative. It's conversationally useless.

[Lacewing]

Peter knows his wife.

Empty words. If it pleases you more - it's uninformative. It's conversationally useless.

Maybe by blurting out "I know my wife", Peter was declaring that he doesn't have Alzheimer's.

What if someone says, "I know God". What do you think of that?

[Sculptor]

George Box claimed that ‘All models are wrong but some are useful’. But if that claim is true, then at least one model is not wrong – in which case, the claim is false.

You have started with a falsehood
If you are trying to suggest that "All models are wrong but some are useful" is a model?
You are just playing the Russell game is a set of all things a set of itself.
You'd do better making a clear distinction between "a model" and "a fact".
Since no model can fully represent that which it models, it cannot be wholly true.
However this statement can be true, as can the claim that "All models are wrong but some are useful"

[Peter Holmes]

George Box claimed that ‘All models are wrong but some are useful’. But if that claim is true, then at least one model is not wrong – in which case, the claim is false.

You have started with a falsehood
If you are trying to suggest that "All models are wrong but some are useful" is a model?
You are just playing the Russell game is a set of all things a set of itself.
You'd do better making a clear distinction between "a model" and "a fact".

If by 'a fact' you mean 'a feature of reality', then it has no truth value, and it clearly isn't a model. But if by 'a fact', you mean 'a description of a feature of reality', then it can exist only within a model - in this case a linguistic model. And if a factual assertion - here a linguistic expression - is true, then its generative model can't be 'wrong'.

Since no model can fully represent that which it models, it cannot be wholly true.

Not so. We've discussed this fully already. 'Incomplete' doesn't mean 'wrong'. And 'full representation' is incoherent anyway.

[Skepdick]

Not so. We've discussed this fully already. 'Incomplete' doesn't mean 'wrong'. And 'full representation' is incoherent anyway.

It's only incoherent to you. In the language of information theory (which is the language I speak) it's a coherent statement.

It's called Losless compression

Lossless compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data. By contrast, lossy compression permits reconstruction only of an approximation of the original data, though usually with greatly improved compression rates (and therefore reduced media sizes).

When using the above vocabulary a "wrong model" is equivalent to lossy compression.

[Skepdick]

Maybe by blurting out "I know my wife", Peter was declaring that he doesn't have Alzheimer's.

Maybe. And that would be a perfectly acceptable response in the context of Skepdick insisting that Peter's wife has blue eyes, while Peter knows damn well her eyes are brown. In which case the implicit "I know my wife" could be seen as an explicit "I don't have bloody Alzheimer's - I know my wife". It would be singling frustration, impatience or unshakeable certainty.

I also considered the possibility that Peter is singling emotional distress; or self-doubt - maybe he does have Alzheimer's and he's finding himself forgetting things about his wife whom he loves very much? He's trying to assure himself by telling me that he knows his wife.

That's why my focus was (and still is) on why he's saying what he's saying and not on his actual words. It provides vital insight into the words' intended meaning.

What if someone says, "I know God". What do you think of that?

Similar to the above thinking, only I'd figure they are singling joy, ecstasy, bliss, revelation or epiphany of sorts.

And jut as before - my focus would be on WHY they are saying it.

[Peter Holmes]

Not so. We've discussed this fully already. 'Incomplete' doesn't mean 'wrong'. And 'full representation' is incoherent anyway.

It's only incoherent to you. In the language of information theory (which is the language I speak) it's a coherent statement.

It's called Losless compression

Lossless compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the original data to be perfectly reconstructed from the compressed data. By contrast, lossy compression permits reconstruction only of an approximation of the original data, though usually with greatly improved compression rates (and therefore reduced media sizes).

When using the above vocabulary a "wrong model" is equivalent to lossy compression.

Okay. So now you've explained a specific, technical use of the word 'wrong': in information theory, a wrong model is equivalent to lossy compression.

To use the word 'wrong' in this way, without clarification, in the claim 'all models are wrong' would be to commit an equivocation fallacy.

But anyway, if lossless compression is possible, then the claim 'all models are wrong' in information theory-speak is obviously false.

Back to the drawing board.

[Skepdick]

Okay. So now you've explained a specific, technical use of the word 'wrong': in information theory, a wrong model is equivalent to lossy compression.

To use the word 'wrong' in this way, without clarification, in the claim 'all models are wrong' would be to commit an equivocation fallacy.

George Box is a statistician. Information Theory corresponds to Statistical mechanics.

Therefore it's reasonable to assume that in his colloquial use of the phrase "All models are wrong, some are useful" George Box is influenced by his information-theoretic background.

It may appear as an equivocation fallacy to you because you are not a statistician/information theorist and so the lossless/lossy distinction is not common sense to you, but it is common sense to George Box and myself.

But anyway, if lossless compression is possible, then the claim 'all models are wrong' in information theory-speak is obviously false.

Back to the drawing board.

Uh! Losless compression is not a model of the original. It's a bit-by-bit (perfect!) replica of the original.
The "wrongness" of lossy compression lies precisely in that it has lost information about the original it represents.

And so the only reason you might need to go "back to the drawing board" is to argue about the metaphysics of identity.

Are two identical/perfect replicas "the same" or "not the same"? Ship of Theseus

Like I said in my very first response. The saying is an adage - to nit-pick its "truthfulness" or "falsity" is to miss the point entirely.

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. So now you've explained a specific, technical use of the word 'wrong': in information theory, a wrong model is equivalent to lossy compression.

To use the word 'wrong' in this way, without clarification, in the claim 'all models are wrong' would be to commit an equivocation fallacy.

But anyway, if lossless compression is possible, then the claim 'all models are wrong' in information theory-speak is obviously false.

Back to the drawing board.

Uh! Losless compression is not a model of the original. It's a bit-by-bit (perfect!) replica of the original.
The "wrongness" of lossy compression lies precisely in that it has lost information about the original it represents.

And so the only reason you would go "back to the drawing board" is to argue about the metaphysics of identity.

Are two identical replicas "the same" or "not the same"? Ship of Theseus

1 If losless compression is not a model of the original, then neither is lossy compression.
2 If you don't call losless compression 'right', then why call lossy compression 'wrong'?
3 If you want to talk about identity, then we're into the philosophical wilderness you claim to despise.
4 I suggest you go back to the drawing board, because you've got this wrong.