"Dawkins says that models > experience. In other words, he prefers an
abstraction to experiment; in other words, he is a priest and not a
scientist. Reality is messy, models are clean and perfect—just like a
religious dogma."
@Xenopol
A model that doesn't include the mess is a lie; it is far more impure than a model that highlights its dangling theads, invalid domains, and ambiguities.
Is Dawkins a priest? He's certainly not a scientist. To be precise, he is a liar-priest. A Sophist. At best, a science-themed Sophist, who occasionally, by accident, offers some real science.
A model without the mess is more properly called a novel. If it's a really nice model maybe we can call it fine art. Michaelangelo's David portrays someone who never existed; that doesn't mean sculpture is bad. However, only a Sophist would try to pass it off as science.
(I do think David shows big M was phenotypically a sodomite. His paintings had limp wrists too. Still, the φαγγωτ was technically excellent in a way moderns can't even dream of aspiring to.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
New failcomment system also fails to publish my comments, it's not limited to yours. Keep trying, it will usually work, eventually.
Blogger deliberately trying to kill itself, I expect.
Captchas should be off. If it gives you one anyway, it's against my explicit instructions.