methodology not angels and pins

CSGnet Archive CSG1998
1

i.kurtzer (980822.1400)

[From Bill Powers (980822.0900 MDT)]

Rupert Young (980822.1400 BST)--

>ESPECIALLY, when you get posts with the header "Base Modeling" and read it
>only to find that it is completely about coercion AGAIN !! (Kenny
>Kitzke(980822.0800 EDT).

Hear, hear! I recommend saying the word "coercion" 200 times in a row out
loud, or as many times as it takes to lose the remainder of its meaning.

and

Not until you use a model to say what you mean. Natural language is not
precise enough to do the job.

there have been enough oblique comments presumeably about myself, Tim, and
Nevin suggesting our positon is merely a word problem, defended by and agenda,
or philosophical in a futile sense. I think that is an inaccurate protrayl.
The issue decided by where one person or both persons in a dyad is key in
identifying WHAT interaction obtains plays directly into methodology. It says
these facts are important or no. That is a very critical issue indeed. We
can eliminate any entire data structure simply by deciding its not important.
That Marken's, Abrams, and presumably Bill's position is eliminative by
disregarding potentialling meaningful data structures and that it fails to
capture important differences in interactions means too bad for the theory.
Facts first, theory second. If a model cannot account for the variety in
life, tough poopy for the model.

i.

2

From [ Marc Abrams (980822.1525) ]

i.kurtzer (980822.1400)

That Marken's, Abrams, and presumably Bill's position is
eliminative by disregarding potentialling meaningful data
structures

And what meaningful data structures am I disregarding?, and
with regard to what?

and that it fails to capture important differences in
interactions means too bad for the theory.
Facts first, theory second. If a model cannot account for

the >variety in life, tough poopy for the model.

And what facts are you referring to? I would be the first to
tell you that Rick's initial model was inadequate to explain
_all_ the instances of "whatever it is you want to call it".
But to throw out the model as useless is nonsense. Lets try
to build the model so these various "differences" might be
better explained. Since you and Ken seem to have such great
interest why don't you initiate the development of this
model.
As i stated in my reply to Ken, I personally have _no_
interest at _this_ time in that kind of model. Nor do I have
any interest in discussing it any further without one,
without an adequate model the arguments will remain circular
and repetitive.

Marc