You seem to be agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone. Instrumentalism [1] is precisely what I am rooting for. That's exactly what I said in my OP: "All scientific models are scale variant e.g contextual." >You can't…
No different to "round-earthers" using technology which uses "flat earth" as a simplifying assumption in the design (hello! Google Maps). Neither party seems to want to acknowledge that the other party's model works…
I used it yes. I didn't design it. In all the times I've used a GPS - the shape of the Earth mattered not one bit to me.
Given a finite data set, an infinite number of functions/curves can explain it. This is curve-fitting 101 stuff. All explanatory models are either an over-fit or an under-fit to the data. With the fine print being…
So can I tell you "shut up and consult some geodesic models" when you spread the gospel that Earth is round? Because strictly and Mathematically speaking, Earth is NOT round. It's NOT spherical or oblate either. Why do…
Furthermore you are arguing my point. Relativism. >some things are more correct than others. On the relative scale of "very incorrect" to "very correct" descriptions of Earth's shape where does "real" start? In relation…
It doesn't matter what we SAY about the shape of the Earth though, does it? It only matters how we use/apply those theories in practice. Practical errors have consequences. Theoretical errors don't. It's just lip…
The shape of the Earth is just a model [1] - an approximation. All models have margins of error. All models are wrong, some are useful [2]. The map is not the territory [3]. All scientific models are scale variant [4]…
You seem to be agreeing with me in a disagreeable tone. Instrumentalism [1] is precisely what I am rooting for. That's exactly what I said in my OP: "All scientific models are scale variant e.g contextual." >You can't…
No different to "round-earthers" using technology which uses "flat earth" as a simplifying assumption in the design (hello! Google Maps). Neither party seems to want to acknowledge that the other party's model works…
I used it yes. I didn't design it. In all the times I've used a GPS - the shape of the Earth mattered not one bit to me.
Given a finite data set, an infinite number of functions/curves can explain it. This is curve-fitting 101 stuff. All explanatory models are either an over-fit or an under-fit to the data. With the fine print being…
So can I tell you "shut up and consult some geodesic models" when you spread the gospel that Earth is round? Because strictly and Mathematically speaking, Earth is NOT round. It's NOT spherical or oblate either. Why do…
Furthermore you are arguing my point. Relativism. >some things are more correct than others. On the relative scale of "very incorrect" to "very correct" descriptions of Earth's shape where does "real" start? In relation…
It doesn't matter what we SAY about the shape of the Earth though, does it? It only matters how we use/apply those theories in practice. Practical errors have consequences. Theoretical errors don't. It's just lip…
The shape of the Earth is just a model [1] - an approximation. All models have margins of error. All models are wrong, some are useful [2]. The map is not the territory [3]. All scientific models are scale variant [4]…