I think I'm a constructivist.

[Testy Calibrate]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

What alternatives to constructivism are there really?

 

[WAB]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

What alternatives to constructivism are there really?

How come I can't read any science article or paper without reading the word "model" every other sentence? Do people need a model of a hamburger to enjoy a meal at Jack-in-the-Box? Or a model of a car to go on a road trip? (I don't mean model as in a model T-Ford, but a model of what a car is in their minds.) Or a model of a sit-com in order to enjoy an episode of friends?

I mean, I understand the meaning of it, and its importance in doing science, or even working out strictly philosophical theories. But it would be nice if intellectuals were to try and work on a more expansive vocabulary.

Anyone conversant with Metzinger's Ego Tunnel? In this book, everything is a "construct" or a "model" the human brain fashions with reference to the external world and how we (whoever "we" are) navigate it. There is no self; there is no "I", only mental impressions, contructs, and models. Models models models. After a while this word begins to look nonsensical.

He has something called the PSM, or "Phenomenal Self Model". And amazingly he comes to this model after having already decided there is no self! Only a "model of the self"! Model model model. The book is saturated with model model model. The reviews of his book at Amazon and elsewhere, largely by people who have already agreed with him before cracking open the book, or having conceived of a model of it before reading it, are full of model this and model that. Model model model...

And anyone who dares not to swallow Metzinger's very old theory (a rehashing of Hume and Berkeley, as if it were something he discovered all on his own), are simply too dumb, or too entrenched in their folksy view of the world.

 

[steve_bank]

Both views are correct depending on how you look at a situation.

I'd say I am a card carrying constructivist. The problem with the opposing view is it ends up with convoluted metaphysics.

Paraphrasing Lord Kelvin, if you can not express what you are talking about in numbers then your knowledge is of a ' meager and unsatisfactory kind'. He went on to say philosophical speculation becomes science when it is numerically quantified. Measurements as in the link is the main point of science.

Science can never be taken as absolute knowledge, we have no way of knowing that. Measurements are formed by relative changes.

One of my favorite sayings is 'the map is not the countryside'. A map is a useful representation of reality but not reality itself. Science likewise is a map of reality, not reality. Science is not about truth, it is about understanding through math.

Truth and meaning in what science discovers is philosophy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

What alternatives to constructivism are there really?

Well, obviously, you're just badly contradicting yourself here!

Still, yes, good, but.

I'm kinda pleased more people should be catching up. But you need to understand it's just Stage 3. So, yeah, good to see more people are moving one to dismiss Stage 2 as too unbearably naive. Looks like there's a progression, somehow. So why stop here? Any good reason?
EB

 

[untermensche]

How come I can't read any science article or paper without reading the word "model" every other sentence?

All scientific understandings are understandings within a model.

No model, no understanding.

 

[WAB]

How come I can't read any science article or paper without reading the word "model" every other sentence?

All scientific understandings are understandings within a model.

No model, no understanding.

You obviously missed where I wrote this:

I mean, I understand the meaning of it, and its importance in doing science, or even working out strictly philosophical theories. But it would be nice if intellectuals were to try and work on a more expansive vocabulary.

It must be nice to be able to respond so casually to every post without really reading them, of bothering to try and understand them.

[model model model model model model model...]

 

[untermensche]

You obviously missed where I wrote this:

I mean, I understand the meaning of it, and its importance in doing science, or even working out strictly philosophical theories. But it would be nice if intellectuals were to try and work on a more expansive vocabulary.

It must be nice to be able to respond so casually to every post without really reading them, of bothering to try and understand them.

[model model model model model model model...]

It is not being casual.

It is having an understanding of what we call scientific knowledge.

It exists within "models". And "model" is a very flexible inexact term.

Some models are just ideas put together like the model of natural selection.

Some are mostly mathematics and very little words. That is when understanding gets very abstract.

But if you want to talk about what we call "scientific understanding" you talk about models.

 

[WAB]

You obviously missed where I wrote this:

I mean, I understand the meaning of it, and its importance in doing science, or even working out strictly philosophical theories. But it would be nice if intellectuals were to try and work on a more expansive vocabulary.

It must be nice to be able to respond so casually to every post without really reading them, of bothering to try and understand them.

[model model model model model model model...]

It is not being casual.

It is having an understanding of what we call scientific knowledge.

It exists within "models". And "model" is a very flexible inexact term.

Some models are just ideas put together like the model of natural selection.

Some are mostly mathematics and very little words. That is when understanding gets very abstract.

But if you want to talk about what we call "scientific understanding" you talk about models.

No shit. I already admitted that. You must have missed it, like you miss just about everything.

Have you read The Ego Tunnel? Rehashed Hume & Berkeley, several centuries too late.

[model model model model model model model model model]

 

[untermensche]

You are a troll, admit it. A squat, Socratic troll.

[model model model model model]

You are a touchy child.

Your tantrum is noted.

If you tire of the word model then stop saying it and pointing out when it is used.

 

[WAB]

And you are a troll. As everyone except yourself has noticed.

I only tire of the word model when it is over-used by pretentious people who have stopped doing science and have stepped into silly rehashings of centuries dead philosophers.

 

[untermensche]

And you are a troll. As everyone except yourself has noticed.

You can only speak for yourself.

Pathetic minds try to hide behind the mob.