• From: David Sheets <sheets@a...>
• To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:47:39 +0000

A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a
similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.

— Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity (1933, p. 58)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation>

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@m...> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> So, you’ve been tasked to create a model of weather patterns. Your
> deliverable is an XML Schema. People will then use your XML Schema to
> generate XML documents and exchange those XML documents.
>
> Ah, the world will be so much better with the ability to exchange
> standardized weather data.
>
> But how will you model weather? What will your XML Schema contain? You do
> not have expertise in weather science. How long will it take to gain the
> expertise to create a useful weather model? How deep into the field should
> you go?
>
> Answer: Give up. You have no hope of ever understanding weather. Even if you
> are already an “expert” in weather science, you have no hope of truly
> understanding weather.
>
> Allow me to explain.
>
> But first, a detour.
>
> …
>
> 1 + 1 = 2
>
> Obvious, right?
>
> Not at all. It took two of the most brilliant 20th century mathematicians
> (Whitehead and Russell) 300 pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.
>
> I have this note next to my desk, which I read every day:
>
> Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize
>                till you have tried to make it precise.
>
> Scientists, mathematicians, engineers, philosophers, sociologists, and
> others recognize the futility of tackling reality head-on. So instead they
> invent miniature – fake – worlds, containing small sets of fake symbols and
> fake rules. They then manipulate the fake symbols, according to the fake
> rules, to see what kind of fake results they get. Sometimes there is a
> correspondence between the symbols and rules in their fake world to things
> in the real world, and so the results they derive in the fake world are then
> applied to the real world (with the caveat that it might be completely
> wrong).
>
> Don’t be deceived (or have the conceit) to think that you fully understand
> something. You don’t. You’re understanding is appallingly shallow. Mine as
> well, of course.
>
> …
>
> Okay, back to the weather XML Schema. You will never understand weather.
> Abandon such ambitions. So what to do? Answer, invent a miniature – fake –
> world, containing a small set of fake symbols and fake rules. Create an XML
> Schema for that fake world. If you’re lucky, exchanges of your fake stuff
> will have utility to others.
>
> Comments?
>
> /Roger

• References:
  • Create fake stuff (that’s all you can really do anyway)
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>