[From Bruce Gregory (990118.0855 EST)]
If, as Rick suggests, we have reference levels for uncontrolled variables,
can these reference levels be said to constitute our model of the world?
Bruce Gregory
[From Bruce Gregory (990201.1610 EST)]
Bruce Gregory (990118.0855 EST)
If, as Rick suggests, we have reference levels for
uncontrolled variables,
can these reference levels be said to constitute our model of
the world?
Been thinking about this for a while. Let's call reference levels for
uncontrolled variables "expectations". In a sense, the collection of our
expectations is a model of the world. In many cases, however, it is not
a "working model". That is, we cannot readily manipulate the model in
order to discover what the world would look like from a different
viewpoint, or if different conditions obtained. I see this when a
student memorizes Newton's Laws. He or she believes the laws, hence they
are part of the student's model of the world. But the model of the world
is a static representation rather than a working model. It is harder to
build a working model than a static representation and generally
students lack insight into the process. They need a coach who can tell
them what to pay attention to and what to look for.
Bruce Gregory