[ModelTheorist12]

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 "acceptable error rate". "The Earth is flat" may be wrong, but it could be acceptably wrong to me.

This is tackled by model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ) and by this paper "To explain or to predict" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf )

[zentiggr]

Your false dichotomy is that sure, your flat-earth approximation is fine, but only on basically personal scales (up to a few miles or so).

You can't charactierize your loacl approximation as a general theory because it will fail as soon as you scale up to horizon effects, and breaks completely when reaching planetary scale.

If you want to keep your flat theory in its applicable scale, fine. Just don't expect to project it outside of its useful scale.

Just like the Newtonian model works well until you reach the scales where relativistic effects demand the shift to relativity.

[ModelTheorist12]

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 charactierize your loacl approximation as a general theory

The exact same criticism can be laid upon your local approximation.

You have chosen precisely the scale at which your 'general model' works. And you have ignored all other scales at which your 'general model' doesn't work.

You are chery-picking your scale - the domain of applicability of your model.

>Just like the Newtonian model works well until you reach the scales where relativistic effects demand the shift to relativity.

And what if you go the other way? At quantum scale neither Newton nor Einstein works.

>Just don't expect to project it outside of its useful scale

That's exactly what I said also: "Scientific models are pragmatic at best. Useful for a particular purpose within some domain of applicability."

So I don't see how you could possibly be appealing to any notion of a 'general theory' without also coming up with a 'general and objective utility function'. What may be a useful to a Quantum Physicist needs not be useful to a Cosmologist.

The only hope for a 'general theory' is the Theory of Everything. We don't have one of those. Well, physicists don't - theists do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

[psychoslave]

>The only hope for a 'general theory' is the Theory of Everything. We don't have one of those. Well, physicists don't - theists do.

What theist theory is supposed to provide a theory of everything[1]?

To my knowledge, theology don't bring any light on such a model.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything