[strogonoff]

I think of models as maps—sure, we are able to map Earth with high accuracy (though still have numerous maps all useful for different things), but only because we are now able to be outside of it; this will never be true for the system that we are modeling using scientific method and that we ourselves are part of.

We will forever have many incomplete maps. Scientific method offers one such map, a product of a particular way of attending to the world, and while it is useful for some purposes I am not sure it is inherently better than other maps. It does not help that it tries (maybe not by design, but at least that’s how it seems to be playing out so far) to sidestep the fact that our minds are both map-creators and part of the territory.

[lisper]

> ignoring the fact that our minds are both map-creators and part of the territory seems foolish

That's a straw man. Of course it's foolish. No one is ignoring it.

[mistermann]

You are literally ignoring it, you speak as if your opinion of reality is a 1:1 match for the thing itself.

Can you link to:

1. Two of your comments in this thread where you express uncertainty in any of your assertions?

2. Two comments where someone disagreed with you, and you acknowledged (in the comment itself) your prior incorrectness/imperfection?

[lisper]

No. But I can link to this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40240018

[mistermann]

> No.

And why is it that you cannot link to what I ask for?

Remember your claim above?

>> ignoring the fact that our minds are both map-creators and part of the territory seems foolish

> That's a straw man. Of course it's foolish. No one is ignoring it.

[lisper]

> And why is it that you cannot link to what I ask for?

Because I don't have time to grovel through everything I've ever posted to find examples where I conceded a point.

> Remember your claim above?

Yes. What does that have to do with anything? That wasn't a reply to you, that was a reply to /u/stroganoff, whereupon /u/stroganoff conceded the point.

So what is your point???

[mistermann]

> Because I don't have time to grovel through everything I've ever posted to find examples where I conceded a point.

Is that the only reason you are unable? Are you sure such examples exist?

>> Remember your claim above?

> Yes. What does that have to do with anything?

Why would you not know the answer to this? You know the answer to everything that's been presented to you, do you not? (Well, except for the substantial amount of questions that have been asked of you throughout these various conversations, by myself and others, that you have dodged. Or the cases where you have asserted that you possess knowledge, but are unwilling to respond to challenges to such claims.)

> So what is your point???

I believe it is possible that:

a) you are not perfectly rational.

b) you are conducting yourself in these internet conversations as if you are.

c) you do not have a deep understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge.

Do you believe that I may be on to something, at least possibly?

[strogonoff]

You misspelled my username, and I did not actually concede the point. It was past midnight here at the time. I only corrected part of my comment, but I still do disagree with your point.

[strogonoff]

Yeah, I edited it after I noticed that myself, apologies.

[lisper]

No worries.