[__MatrixMan__]

I disagree with the need for a warning. I think it would be better if this were _more_ commonly used.

So often debates arrive at a stasis like:

> "You're wrong"

> "No YOU'RE wrong"

And there they sit, each side certain that the other is an idiot.

The alternative is to admit that both parties are right according to their model, and that both models are wrong (because being right is not what models are for). I think this is better because the "which model is more useful" question sets up a lot more potentially fruitful interaction between opposite sides.

The danger you're referring to only occurs in a setting where science is implicitly authoritative in the first place. If we drop that assumption, science still produces the most useful models, but finding the most useful one for your project becomes less adversarial.

[Kattywumpus]

I'm going to remember this. It's a good way to have discussion if you're lucky enough to have someone who can abstract their personal views from the model that produced them.

[seandougall]

I want to believe that, but how do you evaluate models’ usefulness if you refuse to acknowledge facts and data, and just yell “fake news” when they point to a conclusion you don’t like?

[rexpop]

What do you hope to gain from combative dialogue with such people? Are you trying to change how they vote, or shop?