If I ever go on an online dating site, you know what my pet peeve will be? People who say of thought experiments "But that's not true in the real world!"
The capacity for abstract thought is perhaps the most precious gift of our foresighted ancestors who elected evolution over another 10 million years poking anthills with sticks. Why are these people so determined to fling the fruits of this noble legacy away? I tell you, whenever someone tells you "but that's not how it works", know ye by these presents that lurking somewhere back in their family tree was a hairy primate whining "I'm tired of walking upright! Why can't we give up this fire nonsense and head back into the forest?" And that primate was hated by all the other, smarter primates in the tribe.
Models and thought experiments are designed to illuminate principles, not mirror the real world. We already have something that looks and works exactly like the actual world: that is, the world. However, if you want to learn much about that world beyond "Water is wet" and "Fire burns", you need to simplify in order to see deep truths more clearly.
Sentences that start, "In the real world . . . " or "Tha'ts just a model . . . " are indeed damning indictments, but not of the simplification.
"If I ever go on an online dating site, you know what my pet peeve will be? People who say of thought experiments "But that's not true in the real world!""
Hey, why wasn't Jack Handy given credit for this post?
"Why are these people so determined to fling the fruits of this noble legacy away?"
Because they don't work in the real world? The fruits, I mean...
It's hard to decide whether Jack Handey or E.L. Kersten is the most brilliant philosopher of all time. I do have to agree this is one of the better imitiations of Handey I've seen.
"It takes a big man to cry, but it takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man"
Jack Handey
"Hard work often pays off over time, but laziness always pays off now"
Dr. E.L. Kersten
Thought experiments to illustrate principles are fine and good, as long as you're upfront about the fact that you're trying to illustrate a principle. In other cases, they're often dishonest bits of rhetoric.
Take the recent Jonah Goldberg comment Ross references on his page about how it would have been nice to take care of the Soviets immediately after WWII. Now, while this was an idiotic thing to say (exactly how were we supposed to take care of the Soviets?), I doubt Jonah is actually an idiot. He was probably trying to illustrate some kind of point. But what point? Was he suggesting we should have nuked Moscow? In such a case, he really is an idiot, and shouldn't try to hide his idiocy behind a "thought experiment." Did he have some other point? Then why not come out and say it, instead of hiding behind some theoretical "wouldn't it be nice if..."
Thought experiments, in and of themselves, are neither good nor bad. Thought experiments, dishonestly deployed, are bad.
"I doubt Jonah is actually an idiot."
Read more of his work.
He's actually an idiot. That's the least of his flaws, too, which is fairly remarkable.
Where would modern physics be without thought experiments?
This raises the question of whether Paddy's remark "It's only a model" was a statement of what Camelot was in the real world of the film (a model), or a more abstract statement exploring the possiblity that Camelot was not a real place, but a thought experiment (a model) representing the ideal nature of Pythonian society.
The trouble is that anarcho-syndicalist communes don't work in the real world either, so which thought experiment actually defines your reality?
"But that's not true in the real world!"
Wow! I think you just blew your own mind sky-high.
This never quite dawned on me before, but it's now so obvious and clear: Libertarians must hear this all the time! And it's true - most all of what libertarians say isn't true in the real world! You've sort of backed into a real breakthrough here. Good luck with it - be strong!
As a statistical modeler I see your point about how a useful model does not always have perfect correspondence to the real world. if I develop a predictive model that high blood pressure increases the risk of stroke, that does not mean that all people with high blood pressure will get strokes.
But, when I am an epidemiologist, I also have to be an empiricist. I think that the testing of models against real world data is a important step that provides some real insights into these models. Now this is true insofar as they are intended to be applied to the real world; pure math, philosophy and art have a special place here and do not need such links. :-)
So I guess it depends on the context of the criticism. Real examples to illustrate points can be contested on the facts which can obscure the point that is being made. In a given case, all things being held constant, what choice would you make or what decision is rational.
For such thought experiments, I tend to prefer to phrase them in completely abstract form (using only math if possible) but that has it's own set of disadvantages as well.
Actually...
It depends on what the model is being used for.
It is one thing if the model is being used as a thought experiment, and we realize the the simplifications result in limitations to the support that the model can give to the policy choices that the model might suggest.
But, all to often, for some people, these abstract models can totally dominate their thinking. They think they have the "optimal" policy, because of some model in their head. These people need to be slapped upside the head and reminded what they already know. These models are not the real world.
The reminder that a model is not the real world is not an argument against models. It is an argument against misusing such models to support what might be, upon further reflection about how the real world differs from the model, misguided policies.
What HappyConservative said.
I'll second the others who've pointed out that your comment is appropriate when the model is being used to illustrate a point. However, thought experiments and abstract models are often used to justify policy recommendations that will, in fact, be implemented in the real world.
I would be a strong supporter of hypothetical communism and socialism in an ideal world where the central planning committee is competent and knowledgeable and the people are altruistic. I am a strong opponent of communism and socialism in the real world where those aren't true.
Similarly for some of the discussions of carbon taxes and cap and trade systems. It's fine to point out that in a hypothetical world, a carbon tax would be a good way to reduce carbon production and encourage the development of alternatives. In the real world, though, such a system has to contend with real-world greedy politicians, the realities of international trade, the lack of accurate information (and the lack of knowledge about how accurate the information we have is).
"But that's not true in the real world" is a perfectly valid criticism of a policy recommendation...
EI
Actually, I generally find thought experiments idiotic. But that's partly because most of the thought experiments I see discussed have to do with killing some number of people with various characteristics in order to save some other number of people with various characteristics. Which is idiotic because "in the real world" -- sorry, Megan -- one never actually knows whether one's action in killing one person will really save another person, and that very uncertainty goes to the heart of why we think killing people is such a bad thing to do: it is irrevocable, and can't be corrected if you discover your moral calculus was wrong.
Non-killing-people-related thought experiments are less objectionable. Still, I find people who are enamored of thought experiments to be people who have difficulty coping with complexity or uncertainty.
"The real world" is a preposterous model. And often sanctimonious too.
Megan,
Enough testing the waters already. It's OK: you can join an online dating site. There's no stigma attached to it anymore. Especially since you are so tall, and are probably looking for taller men, a large dating site like Match will make it easier for you to find one than simply limiting your prospects to the vicious circle of young D.C. bloggers.
To preempt your enemies in the blogosphere, post a link to your profile on your blog.
Or try eHarmony. There must not be many liberals there, because they are always telling me they don't have any members who would be a good match for me.
What I want to know is, how did a post whose first sentence indicated it would be about dating sites morph into a discussion of thought experiments. What do you imagine dating sites are like? The only place you're likely to run into your "pet peeve" is in some sort of chatroom situation.
"The real world" is a preposterous model.
So is "Road Rules." Both shows are full of preposterous models.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Could you please share with us an example of the thought experiment you proffered that was shot down? And what was the purpose of this thought experiment?
The lady doth protesth too much. Most online dating profiles are thought experiments.
If some people didn't test theoretical models against the real world, science wouldn't have advanced much beyond "Water is wet" and "Fire burns".
We would have Plato-style fake science.
We could have marvelous technology, if we never took the trouble to test the principles against reality and discover that the technology doesn't work. Designs for potter's wheels that spin on ten axes simultaneously while being rotated by fairies and so on.
And then what kind of economy would we have for economists to argue about?
BTW, amorphous' comment is best IMHO. :-)
buy cheap online viagra viagra
buy in nevada viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online book buy online order viagra
Horny Spanish Flies
Horny Spanish Flies
want delete your site from spam bases? mail your domain name - andydelay[at]gmail.com.