🚀 go-pugleaf

<[Bill Leach 950213.01:01 EST(EDT)]
>Message: 31186 on Sun, 12 Feb 1995 23:02:59 -0500
 Author : Susan Schweers <klyne@PANIX.COM>
 Subject: Re: Science, Levels


>... The study of cross-referencing star positions with earth events
>generated information that was systematized, and formulated with
>reference to the discovery of general truths, and the operation of
>general laws.  NOT specifically physical laws, although there is a whole
>branch that deals with that, unusually successfully, in the area of
>medicine, at least.

"Correlation" does not mean "causality" and data that conflicts with a
theory is a serious matter in science.  Clearly, I personally do not
"believe" in Astrology and will admit to being thus biased against it as
a science.

Not being a believer in the "duality" concept, I quickly bristle when I
see something like "NOT specifically physical laws...".


>Astrology was one of the earliest "sciences," and all the original
>astronomers studied under astrologers, many reaching their "fallacy
>level" when they tried to "explain" astrology.  So, its a science,
>albeit a quaint one, indulged in before the physical world became of
>primary importance to people.

Your point is an interesting one and no doubt most of us here are
influenced by limited contact with Astrology.  This probably sounds like
a "cheap shot" but I might remind people that Alchemy was also an early
science.


>Question:  what's a Working Model?  (I NEED to know.)

A working model is a model that is actually required to function on real
data.  It differs from say a "thought experiement" in that incorrect
assumptions are immediatly identified by the fact that they cause the
model to function incorrectly.

Working models may involve simulation (such as is typically for PCT).  In
PCT modeling however, a human works with the same simulation as does the
model so comparing the results is a valid analysis.

The "thought models" of Albus (in particular) are cited for comparison to
working models.  Dr. Albus has created many impressive models of
behaviour ON PAPER but they are not codeable as a program for several
reasons.  Nor is it likely that if the models were made sufficiently
detailed and complete that the "models" would indeed function as
described.

Basically, computers and other hardware have no "opinions" of their own
but mearly carry out the operations for which they have been designed.
By creating working models, one is able to insure that one's own thinking
is complete and consistent with reality as well as produce something that
others can independently verify.


>As far as working, I have a number of clients who's direct financial
>state has been influenced for the better by it, as well as some
>relationships which still exist on account of it, as well as quite a bit
>of other "anecdotal" evidence of its effectiveness.

I think that you already recognize that "anecdotal evidence" is not
considered to be any part of a proof here.  It is at best suggestive that
possibly a consistent phenomenon exists.



-bill